BACKGROUND: Macrolides are useful in a wide range of bacterial infections including upper and lower respiratory tract, skin, and sexually transmitted diseases and are used in Helicobacter pylori eradication regimen. Skin symptoms occurring during drug therapy are mostly attributed to the antibiotic, causing considerable limitations of future therapeutic options. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to demonstrate results of diagnostic testing in cases of clinically suspected immediate and delayed macrolide hypersensitivity. METHODS: A total of 125 patients with a history of immediate or delayed hypersensitivity symptoms in temporal relation to treatment with a macrolide antibiotic were studied using standardised skin tests followed by oral challenges. Selected patients with severe symptoms were further evaluated with in vitro tests. RESULTS: Macrolide hypersensitivity was excluded in 109 patients (87.2%) by tolerated oral challenge tests. During 113 challenges in four patients an exanthema was provoked by the suspected macrolide. Only one patient developed a positive late skin test reaction. Out of the 28 Helicobacter pylori-treated patients, one patient with clarithromycin allergy was identified, whereas in eight cases amoxicillin allergy caused the exanthema. Laboratory tests using the suspected macrolides were constantly negative. CONCLUSIONS: History alone leads to an over-estimation of macrolide hypersensitivity. Moreover, skin and in vitro tests seem to be not very useful in identifying hypersensitive patients. Challenge tests appear to be necessary for definitely confirming or ruling out macrolide allergy.
BACKGROUND:Macrolides are useful in a wide range of bacterial infections including upper and lower respiratory tract, skin, and sexually transmitted diseases and are used in Helicobacter pylori eradication regimen. Skin symptoms occurring during drug therapy are mostly attributed to the antibiotic, causing considerable limitations of future therapeutic options. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to demonstrate results of diagnostic testing in cases of clinically suspected immediate and delayed macrolidehypersensitivity. METHODS: A total of 125 patients with a history of immediate or delayed hypersensitivity symptoms in temporal relation to treatment with a macrolide antibiotic were studied using standardised skin tests followed by oral challenges. Selected patients with severe symptoms were further evaluated with in vitro tests. RESULTS:Macrolidehypersensitivity was excluded in 109 patients (87.2%) by tolerated oral challenge tests. During 113 challenges in four patients an exanthema was provoked by the suspected macrolide. Only one patient developed a positive late skin test reaction. Out of the 28 Helicobacter pylori-treated patients, one patient with clarithromycinallergy was identified, whereas in eight cases amoxicillinallergy caused the exanthema. Laboratory tests using the suspected macrolides were constantly negative. CONCLUSIONS: History alone leads to an over-estimation of macrolidehypersensitivity. Moreover, skin and in vitro tests seem to be not very useful in identifying hypersensitivepatients. Challenge tests appear to be necessary for definitely confirming or ruling out macrolideallergy.
Authors: Mario Sánchez-Borges; Bernard Thong; Miguel Blanca; Luis Felipe Chiaverini Ensina; Sandra González-Díaz; Paul A Greenberger; Edgardo Jares; Young-Koo Jee; Luciana Kase-Tanno; David Khan; Jung-Won Park; Werner Pichler; Antonino Romano; Maria José Torres Jaén Journal: World Allergy Organ J Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 4.084