Is drug allergy less prevalent than previously assumed? A 5-year analysis

Summary Background  Rashes are a frequent conundrum in clinical practice as they may be reactive, drug induced or disease specific. Identification of the culprit drug is important as re‐exposure may be harmful or even life‐threatening and unnecessary avoidance of ‘innocent’ drugs leads to limitation...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:British journal of dermatology (1951) 2012-01, Vol.166 (1), p.107-114
Hauptverfasser: Heinzerling, L.M., Tomsitz, D., Anliker, M.D.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 114
container_issue 1
container_start_page 107
container_title British journal of dermatology (1951)
container_volume 166
creator Heinzerling, L.M.
Tomsitz, D.
Anliker, M.D.
description Summary Background  Rashes are a frequent conundrum in clinical practice as they may be reactive, drug induced or disease specific. Identification of the culprit drug is important as re‐exposure may be harmful or even life‐threatening and unnecessary avoidance of ‘innocent’ drugs leads to limitations of treatment options. Objective  To objectify the cause of suspected cutaneous drug reactions in a large patient population. Method  Over 5 years (2006–10), 612 patients with suspected cutaneous drug reactions were evaluated. Histology was assessed. About 200 patients were invited for complete work‐up with skin tests (prick/intracutaneous testing and scratch/patch as indicated) and, if necessary, lymphocyte transformation tests (LTT). In special cases, drug provocation tests were conducted. Results  A total number of 141 cases with suspected drug reaction underwent full work‐up (age 6–86 years; 75% female, 25% male). In 107 cases (76%) a drug was identified whereas 34 (24%) were reactive rashes or had other causes. Mostly, cutaneous drug reactions were maculopapular rashes, urticaria/angio‐oedema; less frequently, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, systemic drug‐related intertriginous and flexural exanthema, toxic epidermal necrolysis and fixed drug eruptions were present. Of all the cutaneous drug reactions investigated, 39·8% were caused by antibiotics, 21·2% by anti‐inflammatories, 7·6% by contrast media and 31·4% by others (oral antidiabetics, antimycotics, antipsychotics, antiepileptics and others). Conclusion  Clinical assessment overestimates the role of drug allergies in cutaneous reactions. Assessment of suspected drug reactions can be greatly improved by thorough evaluation including dermatological and allergological work‐up with skin testing and assays such as LTT.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10623.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_913718259</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>913718259</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3883-a91228030b9f3548e48a8b88d78cfe3bec41e3d53694f6f95de434f65728a79c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkU9P3DAQxa2Kqiy0X6HypeKUYGfixL60goWFrRBVJaoerdlkQrP1hsXewObb4_3T7VxmrPnpafweY1yKVMY6n6cSCpVkEiDNhJSpFEUG6fodGx0WR2wkhCgTYQo4ZichzIWQIJT4wI4zaWShdTli02ngte8fOTpH_nHgjkLgS08v6Khb8dUf7LbP9qkPbuAYQr-g-hu_4CoZCD3HDt0Q2vCRvW_QBfq076fs1-T6YXyb3P24mY4v7pIKtIYEjcwyLUDMTAMq15Rr1DOt61JXDcGMqlwS1AoKkzdFY1RNOcRJlZnG0lRwys52ukv_9NxTWNlFGypyDjuKN1ojoZQ6UyaSn_dkP4s326VvF-gH--_3EfiyBzBU6BqPXdWG_5zKIdqqI_d1x722jobDXgq7ScPO7cZ0uzHdbtKw2zTs2l5-v9qOUSDZCbRhReuDAPq_tiihVPb3_Y29n_zMJ5cPY1vAG-Khits</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>913718259</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Is drug allergy less prevalent than previously assumed? A 5-year analysis</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Heinzerling, L.M. ; Tomsitz, D. ; Anliker, M.D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Heinzerling, L.M. ; Tomsitz, D. ; Anliker, M.D.</creatorcontrib><description>Summary Background  Rashes are a frequent conundrum in clinical practice as they may be reactive, drug induced or disease specific. Identification of the culprit drug is important as re‐exposure may be harmful or even life‐threatening and unnecessary avoidance of ‘innocent’ drugs leads to limitations of treatment options. Objective  To objectify the cause of suspected cutaneous drug reactions in a large patient population. Method  Over 5 years (2006–10), 612 patients with suspected cutaneous drug reactions were evaluated. Histology was assessed. About 200 patients were invited for complete work‐up with skin tests (prick/intracutaneous testing and scratch/patch as indicated) and, if necessary, lymphocyte transformation tests (LTT). In special cases, drug provocation tests were conducted. Results  A total number of 141 cases with suspected drug reaction underwent full work‐up (age 6–86 years; 75% female, 25% male). In 107 cases (76%) a drug was identified whereas 34 (24%) were reactive rashes or had other causes. Mostly, cutaneous drug reactions were maculopapular rashes, urticaria/angio‐oedema; less frequently, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, systemic drug‐related intertriginous and flexural exanthema, toxic epidermal necrolysis and fixed drug eruptions were present. Of all the cutaneous drug reactions investigated, 39·8% were caused by antibiotics, 21·2% by anti‐inflammatories, 7·6% by contrast media and 31·4% by others (oral antidiabetics, antimycotics, antipsychotics, antiepileptics and others). Conclusion  Clinical assessment overestimates the role of drug allergies in cutaneous reactions. Assessment of suspected drug reactions can be greatly improved by thorough evaluation including dermatological and allergological work‐up with skin testing and assays such as LTT.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-0963</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2133</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10623.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21916887</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BJDEAZ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Anti-Bacterial Agents - adverse effects ; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal - adverse effects ; Biological and medical sciences ; Child ; Contrast Media - adverse effects ; Dermatology ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Drug Eruptions - diagnosis ; Drug Eruptions - epidemiology ; Drug Eruptions - etiology ; Epidemiology ; Female ; General aspects ; Humans ; Longitudinal Studies ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Prevalence ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Risk Factors ; Skin Tests - methods ; Switzerland - epidemiology ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>British journal of dermatology (1951), 2012-01, Vol.166 (1), p.107-114</ispartof><rights>2011 The Authors. BJD © 2011 British Association of Dermatologists</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>2011 The Authors. BJD © 2011 British Association of Dermatologists.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3883-a91228030b9f3548e48a8b88d78cfe3bec41e3d53694f6f95de434f65728a79c3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2133.2011.10623.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2133.2011.10623.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,4010,27900,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=25436238$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21916887$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Heinzerling, L.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tomsitz, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anliker, M.D.</creatorcontrib><title>Is drug allergy less prevalent than previously assumed? A 5-year analysis</title><title>British journal of dermatology (1951)</title><addtitle>Br J Dermatol</addtitle><description>Summary Background  Rashes are a frequent conundrum in clinical practice as they may be reactive, drug induced or disease specific. Identification of the culprit drug is important as re‐exposure may be harmful or even life‐threatening and unnecessary avoidance of ‘innocent’ drugs leads to limitations of treatment options. Objective  To objectify the cause of suspected cutaneous drug reactions in a large patient population. Method  Over 5 years (2006–10), 612 patients with suspected cutaneous drug reactions were evaluated. Histology was assessed. About 200 patients were invited for complete work‐up with skin tests (prick/intracutaneous testing and scratch/patch as indicated) and, if necessary, lymphocyte transformation tests (LTT). In special cases, drug provocation tests were conducted. Results  A total number of 141 cases with suspected drug reaction underwent full work‐up (age 6–86 years; 75% female, 25% male). In 107 cases (76%) a drug was identified whereas 34 (24%) were reactive rashes or had other causes. Mostly, cutaneous drug reactions were maculopapular rashes, urticaria/angio‐oedema; less frequently, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, systemic drug‐related intertriginous and flexural exanthema, toxic epidermal necrolysis and fixed drug eruptions were present. Of all the cutaneous drug reactions investigated, 39·8% were caused by antibiotics, 21·2% by anti‐inflammatories, 7·6% by contrast media and 31·4% by others (oral antidiabetics, antimycotics, antipsychotics, antiepileptics and others). Conclusion  Clinical assessment overestimates the role of drug allergies in cutaneous reactions. Assessment of suspected drug reactions can be greatly improved by thorough evaluation including dermatological and allergological work‐up with skin testing and assays such as LTT.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents - adverse effects</subject><subject>Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal - adverse effects</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Contrast Media - adverse effects</subject><subject>Dermatology</subject><subject>Diagnosis, Differential</subject><subject>Drug Eruptions - diagnosis</subject><subject>Drug Eruptions - epidemiology</subject><subject>Drug Eruptions - etiology</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Longitudinal Studies</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Skin Tests - methods</subject><subject>Switzerland - epidemiology</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0007-0963</issn><issn>1365-2133</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkU9P3DAQxa2Kqiy0X6HypeKUYGfixL60goWFrRBVJaoerdlkQrP1hsXewObb4_3T7VxmrPnpafweY1yKVMY6n6cSCpVkEiDNhJSpFEUG6fodGx0WR2wkhCgTYQo4ZichzIWQIJT4wI4zaWShdTli02ngte8fOTpH_nHgjkLgS08v6Khb8dUf7LbP9qkPbuAYQr-g-hu_4CoZCD3HDt0Q2vCRvW_QBfq076fs1-T6YXyb3P24mY4v7pIKtIYEjcwyLUDMTAMq15Rr1DOt61JXDcGMqlwS1AoKkzdFY1RNOcRJlZnG0lRwys52ukv_9NxTWNlFGypyDjuKN1ojoZQ6UyaSn_dkP4s326VvF-gH--_3EfiyBzBU6BqPXdWG_5zKIdqqI_d1x722jobDXgq7ScPO7cZ0uzHdbtKw2zTs2l5-v9qOUSDZCbRhReuDAPq_tiihVPb3_Y29n_zMJ5cPY1vAG-Khits</recordid><startdate>201201</startdate><enddate>201201</enddate><creator>Heinzerling, L.M.</creator><creator>Tomsitz, D.</creator><creator>Anliker, M.D.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201201</creationdate><title>Is drug allergy less prevalent than previously assumed? A 5-year analysis</title><author>Heinzerling, L.M. ; Tomsitz, D. ; Anliker, M.D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3883-a91228030b9f3548e48a8b88d78cfe3bec41e3d53694f6f95de434f65728a79c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Anti-Bacterial Agents - adverse effects</topic><topic>Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal - adverse effects</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Contrast Media - adverse effects</topic><topic>Dermatology</topic><topic>Diagnosis, Differential</topic><topic>Drug Eruptions - diagnosis</topic><topic>Drug Eruptions - epidemiology</topic><topic>Drug Eruptions - etiology</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Longitudinal Studies</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Skin Tests - methods</topic><topic>Switzerland - epidemiology</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Heinzerling, L.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tomsitz, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anliker, M.D.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>British journal of dermatology (1951)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Heinzerling, L.M.</au><au>Tomsitz, D.</au><au>Anliker, M.D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Is drug allergy less prevalent than previously assumed? A 5-year analysis</atitle><jtitle>British journal of dermatology (1951)</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Dermatol</addtitle><date>2012-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>166</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>107</spage><epage>114</epage><pages>107-114</pages><issn>0007-0963</issn><eissn>1365-2133</eissn><coden>BJDEAZ</coden><abstract>Summary Background  Rashes are a frequent conundrum in clinical practice as they may be reactive, drug induced or disease specific. Identification of the culprit drug is important as re‐exposure may be harmful or even life‐threatening and unnecessary avoidance of ‘innocent’ drugs leads to limitations of treatment options. Objective  To objectify the cause of suspected cutaneous drug reactions in a large patient population. Method  Over 5 years (2006–10), 612 patients with suspected cutaneous drug reactions were evaluated. Histology was assessed. About 200 patients were invited for complete work‐up with skin tests (prick/intracutaneous testing and scratch/patch as indicated) and, if necessary, lymphocyte transformation tests (LTT). In special cases, drug provocation tests were conducted. Results  A total number of 141 cases with suspected drug reaction underwent full work‐up (age 6–86 years; 75% female, 25% male). In 107 cases (76%) a drug was identified whereas 34 (24%) were reactive rashes or had other causes. Mostly, cutaneous drug reactions were maculopapular rashes, urticaria/angio‐oedema; less frequently, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, systemic drug‐related intertriginous and flexural exanthema, toxic epidermal necrolysis and fixed drug eruptions were present. Of all the cutaneous drug reactions investigated, 39·8% were caused by antibiotics, 21·2% by anti‐inflammatories, 7·6% by contrast media and 31·4% by others (oral antidiabetics, antimycotics, antipsychotics, antiepileptics and others). Conclusion  Clinical assessment overestimates the role of drug allergies in cutaneous reactions. Assessment of suspected drug reactions can be greatly improved by thorough evaluation including dermatological and allergological work‐up with skin testing and assays such as LTT.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>21916887</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10623.x</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0007-0963
ispartof British journal of dermatology (1951), 2012-01, Vol.166 (1), p.107-114
issn 0007-0963
1365-2133
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_913718259
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Anti-Bacterial Agents - adverse effects
Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal - adverse effects
Biological and medical sciences
Child
Contrast Media - adverse effects
Dermatology
Diagnosis, Differential
Drug Eruptions - diagnosis
Drug Eruptions - epidemiology
Drug Eruptions - etiology
Epidemiology
Female
General aspects
Humans
Longitudinal Studies
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Prevalence
Public health. Hygiene
Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
Risk Factors
Skin Tests - methods
Switzerland - epidemiology
Young Adult
title Is drug allergy less prevalent than previously assumed? A 5-year analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T17%3A47%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Is%20drug%20allergy%20less%20prevalent%20than%20previously%20assumed?%20A%205-year%20analysis&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20dermatology%20(1951)&rft.au=Heinzerling,%20L.M.&rft.date=2012-01&rft.volume=166&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=107&rft.epage=114&rft.pages=107-114&rft.issn=0007-0963&rft.eissn=1365-2133&rft.coden=BJDEAZ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10623.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E913718259%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=913718259&rft_id=info:pmid/21916887&rfr_iscdi=true