Literature DB >> 19419234

Patch testing for the diagnosis of anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome: a systematic review.

Abdelbaset A Elzagallaai1, Sandra R Knowles, Michael J Rieder, John R Bend, Neil H Shear, Gideon Koren.   

Abstract

Anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome (AHS), also known by the other names drug rash (reaction) with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) and drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS), is a rare and potentially fatal reaction that occurs in susceptible patients after exposure to certain drugs, including aromatic anticonvulsants. Because of its ill-defined clinical picture and resemblance to other diseases, the diagnosis of AHS is often difficult and requires a safe and reliable diagnostic test. The skin patch test has been proven to be very useful for prediction and diagnosis of some types of hypersensitivity reactions such as delayed drug eruptions to beta-lactam antibacterials. However, the diagnostic value of patch testing for AHS is yet to be determined and its negative predictive values (NPVs) and positive predictive values (PPVs) are still unknown. This systematic review attempts to evaluate the usefulness of patch tests in the diagnosis of AHS and to examine different technical aspects of patch testing that may contribute to its performance. We included studies in which aromatic anticonvulsant drugs are the likely causes of the hypersensitivity reaction. Analysis of original publications from 1950 to August 2008 and cited in PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE has revealed contradictory findings, possibly due mainly to the use of unstandardized methods. Numerous factors have been suggested to affect the final result of the test, including the following: type of drug tested; concentration of drug and vehicle used; timing of the test after exposure; and the clinical picture of the reaction. The PPV of the test in optimal conditions was as high as 80-90% depending on the drug tested. On the other hand, this value is around 10-20% in many other published studies. Although patch testing may be a useful diagnostic test for AHS, accurate determination of its sensitivity and specificity is yet to be achievable due to the lack of a gold standard test against which the performance of patch testing can be measured. Its PPV appears to be higher than its NPV, a matter that necessitates the use of other confirmatory tests in case of negative patch tests (e.g. careful systemic rechallenge). The benefit of testing appears to be maximal with certain drugs (i.e. carbamazepine and phenytoin) and for specific clinical manifestations (strong reactions). It should be performed 2-6 months after recovery from the date of the ADR for best results, with adequate vehicle control.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19419234     DOI: 10.2165/00002018-200932050-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Drug Saf        ISSN: 0114-5916            Impact factor:   5.606


  134 in total

Review 1.  Idiosyncratic drug reactions: current understanding.

Authors:  Jack Uetrecht
Journal:  Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 13.820

2.  Multiple drug hypersensitivity--proof of multiple drug hypersensitivity by patch and lymphocyte transformation tests.

Authors:  C Gex-Collet; A Helbling; W J Pichler
Journal:  J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.333

Review 3.  Hypersensitivity to aromatic anticonvulsants: in vivo and in vitro cross-reactivity studies.

Authors:  Antonino Romano; Rosa Pettinato; Maria Andriolo; Marinella Viola; Rosa-Maria Guéant-Rodriguez; Rocco Luigi Valluzzi; Corrado Romano; Maurizio Elia; Maria Teresa Ventura; Jean-Louis Guéant
Journal:  Curr Pharm Des       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.116

4.  Carbamazepine induced erythroderma with systemic lymphadenopathy.

Authors:  R Okuyama; R Ichinohasama; H Tagami
Journal:  J Dermatol       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 4.005

5.  Prevalence of contact allergy by sex, race and age.

Authors:  C L Goh
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  1986-04       Impact factor: 6.600

Review 6.  Age and skin structure and function, a quantitative approach (II): protein, glycosaminoglycan, water, and lipid content and structure.

Authors:  Jeanette M Waller; Howard I Maibach
Journal:  Skin Res Technol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.365

7.  Delayed hypersensitivity to hydroxychloroquine manifested by two different types of cutaneous eruptions in the same patient.

Authors:  P Rojas Pérez-Ezquerra; M de Barrio Fernández; F J de Castro Martínez; F J Ruiz Hornillos; A Prieto García
Journal:  Allergol Immunopathol (Madr)       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.667

8.  Current understanding of delayed anticonvulsant hypersensitivity reactions.

Authors:  Gregory Krauss
Journal:  Epilepsy Curr       Date:  2006 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 7.500

9.  Allergy to carbamazepine: parallel in vivo and in vitro detection.

Authors:  R J Troost; J A Van Parys; H Hooijkaas; T van Joost; R Benner; E P Prens
Journal:  Epilepsia       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 5.864

10.  Eosinophilic esophagitis is a component of the anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome: description of two cases.

Authors:  C Balatsinou; A Milano; M P Caldarella; F Laterza; S D Pierdomenico; F Cuccurullo; M Neri
Journal:  Dig Liver Dis       Date:  2007-03-28       Impact factor: 4.088

View more
  7 in total

1.  Predictive value of the lymphocyte toxicity assay in the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity syndrome.

Authors:  Abdelbaset A Elzagallaai; Zahra Jahedmotlagh; Blanca R Del Pozzo-Magaña; Sandra R Knowles; Asuri N Prasad; Neil H Shear; Michael J Rieder; Gideon Koren
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2010-10-01       Impact factor: 4.074

Review 2.  In vitro testing for the diagnosis of anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome: a systematic review.

Authors:  Abdelbaset A Elzagallaai; Sandra R Knowles; Michael J Rieder; John R Bend; Neil H Shear; Gideon Koren
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.074

3.  Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms: An Update and Review of Recent Literature.

Authors:  Abhishek De; Murlidhar Rajagopalan; Aarti Sarda; Sudip Das; Projna Biswas
Journal:  Indian J Dermatol       Date:  2018 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.494

4.  Prevalence and Clinical Features of Drug Reactions With Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms Syndrome Caused by Antituberculosis Drugs: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Ho Yeon Jung; Sunmin Park; Beomsu Shin; Ji Ho Lee; Seok Jeong Lee; Myoung Kyu Lee; Won Yeon Lee; Suk Joong Yong; Sang Ha Kim
Journal:  Allergy Asthma Immunol Res       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 5.764

Review 5.  Drug-Induced Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions: Insights Into Clinical Presentation, Immunopathogenesis, Diagnostic Methods, Treatment, and Pharmacogenomics.

Authors:  Therdpong Tempark; Shobana John; Pawinee Rerknimitr; Patompong Satapornpong; Chonlaphat Sukasem
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2022-04-20       Impact factor: 5.988

6.  Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions in Dogs Treated with Antiepileptic Drugs.

Authors:  Tina Koch; Ralf S Mueller; Britta Dobenecker; Andrea Fischer
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2016-04-14

Review 7.  The Role of Patch Testing in Evaluating Delayed Hypersensitivity Reactions to Medications.

Authors:  Carina M Woodruff; Nina Botto
Journal:  Clin Rev Allergy Immunol       Date:  2022-02-03       Impact factor: 10.817

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.