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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | British journal of dermatology (1951) 2012-01, Vol.166 (1), p.107-114 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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&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 |