BACKGROUND: Patch testing is less dangerous than oral provocation testing for identification of the causative drug for patients with drug eruption; however, its usefulness for such identification is controversial. AIM: To clarify the rates of positive patch testing for patients with drug eruption, classified by causative drugs and clinical features. METHODS: We analysed results during the period 1990-2010 for 444 patients (151 men, 293 women; mean ± SD age 49.9 ± 18.6 years) who were tested for drug eruption. In the patient group, there were 309 people (69.1%) with maculopapular eruption and 31 (6.9%) with severe drug eruption. The test materials were applied to the back and left for 2 days under occlusion, then results were assessed by the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG) scoring system 3 days after application. Reactions of + to +++ were regarded as positive. RESULTS: Of the 444 patients, 100 (22.4%) had a positive patch test result to a suspected drug. Positive rates were 23.6% and 20.0% for maculopapular eruption and fixed drug eruption, respectively. The class of materials to which most patients reacted positively was contrast medium (n = 53; 41.1%), followed by drugs acting on the central nervous system (n = 18; 28.6%). In the latter group, 16 of the 18 patients were positive to antiepileptics. CONCLUSIONS: Positive rates depend on the causative drug rather than the clinical features of the drug eruption. Patch testing is useful when contrast medium or antiepileptics are suspected to be the causative drugs. However, standardization of patch test materials and method of reading is needed, as well as guidelines regarding when testing should be performed. Although patch testing for drug eruption has significant potential, it requires further validation.
BACKGROUND: Patch testing is less dangerous than oral provocation testing for identification of the causative drug for patients with drug eruption; however, its usefulness for such identification is controversial. AIM: To clarify the rates of positive patch testing for patients with drug eruption, classified by causative drugs and clinical features. METHODS: We analysed results during the period 1990-2010 for 444 patients (151 men, 293 women; mean ± SD age 49.9 ± 18.6 years) who were tested for drug eruption. In the patient group, there were 309 people (69.1%) with maculopapular eruption and 31 (6.9%) with severe drug eruption. The test materials were applied to the back and left for 2 days under occlusion, then results were assessed by the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG) scoring system 3 days after application. Reactions of + to +++ were regarded as positive. RESULTS: Of the 444 patients, 100 (22.4%) had a positive patch test result to a suspected drug. Positive rates were 23.6% and 20.0% for maculopapular eruption and fixed drug eruption, respectively. The class of materials to which most patients reacted positively was contrast medium (n = 53; 41.1%), followed by drugs acting on the central nervous system (n = 18; 28.6%). In the latter group, 16 of the 18 patients were positive to antiepileptics. CONCLUSIONS: Positive rates depend on the causative drug rather than the clinical features of the drug eruption. Patch testing is useful when contrast medium or antiepileptics are suspected to be the causative drugs. However, standardization of patch test materials and method of reading is needed, as well as guidelines regarding when testing should be performed. Although patch testing for drug eruption has significant potential, it requires further validation.