BACKGROUND: Vancomycin (V) and teicoplanin (T) are glycopeptides used in severe infections and can induce different kinds of cutaneous adverse reactions (CAR). AIMS: To determine the value of immunoallergic investigations in CAR in which glycopeptides are suspected. METHODS: Retrospective study (2000-2007) in eight patients with CAR suspected of being caused by glycopeptides. Six weeks after abatement of the reaction, in accordance with ESCD's guideline for drug testing, immunoallergic skin tests investigations were carried out (drug patch-tests, prick-tests and intradermal tests) in succession for all the drugs taken during the CAR. If negative, a glycopeptide challenge was proposed. RESULTS: The study included eight patients (five women, three men; mean age=53); three patients presented a reaction to vancomycin, four reacted to teicoplanin and one reacted to both drugs. CARs consisted of six maculopapular rashes, one case of DRESS and one of urticaria. Skin tests confirmed involvement of glycopeptides in four of eight cases with cross-reactivity between V and T in two patients. Four patients exhibited good tolerance to rechallenge tests with glycopeptides. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that skin tests may be useful in glycopeptide-induced CAR in determining the responsible drug and also in the event of rechallenge. Allergic cross-reactivity (V and T), observed in two of our patients, although already been reported in the literature, but does not occur systematically. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND:Vancomycin (V) and teicoplanin (T) are glycopeptides used in severe infections and can induce different kinds of cutaneous adverse reactions (CAR). AIMS: To determine the value of immunoallergic investigations in CAR in which glycopeptides are suspected. METHODS: Retrospective study (2000-2007) in eight patients with CAR suspected of being caused by glycopeptides. Six weeks after abatement of the reaction, in accordance with ESCD's guideline for drug testing, immunoallergic skin tests investigations were carried out (drug patch-tests, prick-tests and intradermal tests) in succession for all the drugs taken during the CAR. If negative, a glycopeptide challenge was proposed. RESULTS: The study included eight patients (five women, three men; mean age=53); three patients presented a reaction to vancomycin, four reacted to teicoplanin and one reacted to both drugs. CARs consisted of six maculopapular rashes, one case of DRESS and one of urticaria. Skin tests confirmed involvement of glycopeptides in four of eight cases with cross-reactivity between V and T in two patients. Four patients exhibited good tolerance to rechallenge tests with glycopeptides. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that skin tests may be useful in glycopeptide-induced CAR in determining the responsible drug and also in the event of rechallenge. Allergic cross-reactivity (V and T), observed in two of our patients, although already been reported in the literature, but does not occur systematically. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.