Systemic Versus Topical Corticosteroids in the Treatment of DRESS: A Retrospective Cohort Study Followed by a Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a severe systemic drug hypersensitivity syndrome with significant risks of mortality and long-term sequelae. Management is challenging; whilst systemic corticosteroids are generally regarded as standard of care, there is a suggestion that topical corticosteroids may be a safe alternative. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with DRESS treated with systemic corticosteroids and topical corticosteroids in an academic medical center. METHODS: The medical records of patients diagnosed with DRESS at the Singapore General Hospital between 2009 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. A secondary systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to further clarify the outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 94 patients with DRESS, 41 (44%) were treated with topical corticosteroids and 53 (56%) were treated with systemic corticosteroids. Patients receiving systemic corticosteroids were more likely to develop infective complications (32.1 vs 12.2%, p = 0.02). One-month and 12-month mortality, length of hospital stay, flares of DRESS, and viral reactivation were similar between the two groups. In our meta-analysis (six studies, n = 292), there were no significant differences in mortality or length of stay between patients treated with systemic or topical corticosteroids. LIMITATIONS: This study was a non-controlled retrospective cohort study and the allocation of treatment may have been influenced by the severity of disease. Results of the secondary meta-analysis are limited by the quality of included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Topical corticosteroids may be a safe and efficacious alternative to systemic corticosteroids in the treatment of mild-to-moderate DRESS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42021285691.

Incidence of cutaneous graft-versus-host disease in a Singapore academic medical centre - A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is common in allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. HLA mismatch is the most significant determinant of GVHD. Our study aimed to compare the incidence of cutaneous GVHD haploidentical (Haplo) and matched donors in an Asian population. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of the 2015-2019 bone marrow transplant registry was conducted in a transplant centre. We compared the incidence of cutaneous GVHD in Haplo with allogeneic matched unrelated donor (MUD) and matched-sibling donor (MSD) transplant recipients. Secondary objectives include acute and chronic GVHD incidence, dermatology referrals, and histological findings. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-nine out of 203 cases were reviewed; 17 (9.5%) Haplo, 80 (44.7%) MUDs and 82 (45.8%) MSDs. The median follow-up for Haplo, MUD and MSD was 15.2, 34.2 and 35.7 months, respectively. Haplo had a higher cumulative incidence of cutaneous GVHD than MUD and MSD (p = 0.053). Chronic GVHD was only reported in MSD. The most common histology was vacuolar interface changes (13 [44.8%]) with a wide range of onset post-transplant (19-456 days). CONCLUSIONS: Haplo donors may have a higher GVHD incidence than MUD and MSD in our predominantly Asian cohort. This information may be helpful when counselling patients pre-transplant. Further prospective studies are required.

Improving drug allergy label accuracy by supervised safety- and protocol-driven evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Drug allergies are often self-reported but of unknown accuracy. We carried out a prospective study to examine the utility and safety of formal allergology evaluation, and to identify factors associated with accurate drug allergy labels. METHOD: All patients who underwent drug allergy evaluation in our clinic during the study period were recruited. Baseline demographics, characteristics of index hypersensitivity reaction and outcomes of evaluation were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 331 patients from March 2019 to June 2021 completed drug allergy evaluation to index drugs of concern. There were 123 (37%) male patients, and the mean age was 49 years (standard deviation 17). There were 170 beta-lactam antibiotics, 53 peri-operative drugs, 43 others, 38 non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and 27 non-beta-lactam antibiotic evaluations. Index reaction occurred within 5 years in 165 (50%) patients, with latency of less than 4 hours in 125 (38%) patients. The most common index reactions were rash, angioedema and urticaria. There were 57 (17%) evaluations stratified as low risk, 222 (67%) moderate risk, and 52 (16%) high risk based on multidisciplinary consensus. Allergy label was found to be false (negative drug evaluation) in 248 (75%) patients, while 16/237 (7%) skin tests, 44/331 (13%) in-clinic graded challenge, and 23/134 (17%) home prolonged challenges were positive (true drug allergy). The most common evaluation reactions were rash and urticaria. No cases of anaphylaxis were elicited. CONCLUSION: Seventy-five percent of drug allergy labels are inaccurate. Risk-stratified, protocolised allergy evaluation is safe. Prolonged drug challenge increases the sensitivity of drug allergy evaluation and should therefore be performed when indicated.

Mycoplasma-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis: Case-control analysis of a cohort managed in a specialized center.

BACKGROUND: Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MP) infection is associated with extrapulmonary complications such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS)/toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the differences in epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and disease outcomes between drug-induced and Mycoplasma-related SJS/TEN. METHODS: All patients with SJS/TEN admitted to our center between 2003 and 2016 inclusive were treated under a standardized protocol. Comparative analysis was made between patients who tested positive for MP versus a control group with negative MP serology in the presence of high-notoriety drugs defined by an algorithm for assessment of drug causality in epidermal necrolysis >5. RESULTS: Of 180 cases of SJS/TEN patients treated in our institution, 6 had positive MP serologies and were compared to a control group of 71 cases of drug-induced SJS/TEN with an algorithm for assessment of drug causality in epidermal necrolysis score of >5. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics, disease classification, body surface area involved, and extent of mucosal involvement. We found significant differences in mortality rates between the Mycoplasma and control groups on discharge (0% vs 22.5%, P < .001) and at 1-year follow up (0% vs 32.4%, P = .002), respectively. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design, small sample size. CONCLUSION: Although recent studies have shown that MP-induced SJS/TEN is morphologically different and deserves a separate classification system, this would need to be borne out in larger prospective studies.

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis: Epidemiology, clinical course, and treatment outcomes of patients treated in an Asian academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) is a rare severe cutaneous adverse drug reaction. Although acutely patients have significant morbidity and occasional systemic involvement, the clinical course is generally self-limited. To date, there has been no consensus on treatment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our current study was to evaluate the clinical features, drug association, treatment, and outcomes in a cohort of patients treated in an academic medical center. METHODS: A retrospective review of electronic medical records over a period of 10 years from 2009 to 2018 in a single tertiary academic medical center in Singapore was performed. Forty-three medical records with probable/definite diagnosis of AGEP were identified and analyzed for statistical significance. RESULTS: Drug association was identified in 93% of cases. The most frequent drug class was antibiotics, including penicillins, cephalosporins, and vancomycin. Systemic involvement was reported in 13.9% of patients. All cases of AGEP resolved with cessation of the offending drug. There was no mortality attributed to AGEP. Treatment with systemic steroid was associated with a decreased length of hospital stay (P = .035) in patients with AGEP. CONCLUSION: AGEP was a self-limiting adverse drug reaction that was commonly caused by antibiotics. Although there was no difference in mortality, there was a significant reduction in the length of hospitalization with systemic corticosteroid treatment compared with that of topical corticosteroid treatment of AGEP.

Glucocorticoids for the treatment of anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is a serious hypersensitivity reaction that is rapid in onset and may result in death. Anaphylaxis guidelines recommend glucocorticoids for the treatment of people experiencing anaphylaxis. OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticoid treatment during episodes of anaphylaxis. SEARCH METHODS: In our previous version we searched the literature until September 2009. In this version we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1956 to September 2011), EMBASE (Ovid) (1982 to September 2011), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (to September 2011). We also searched the UK National Research Register and websites listing ongoing trials, and contacted international experts in anaphylaxis in an attempt to locate unpublished material. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing glucocorticoids with any control (either placebo, adrenaline (epinephrine), an antihistamine, or any combination of these). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed articles for inclusion. MAIN RESULTS: We found no studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are, based on this review, unable to make any recommendations for the use of glucocorticoids in the treatment of anaphylaxis.

Glucocorticoids for the treatment of anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is a serious hypersensitivity reaction that is rapid in onset and may result in death. Anaphylaxis guidelines recommend glucocorticoids for the treatment of people experiencing anaphylaxis. OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticoid treatment during episodes of anaphylaxis. SEARCH METHODS: In our previous version we searched the literature until September 2009. In this version we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1956 to September 2011), EMBASE (Ovid) (1982 to September 2011), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (to September 2011). We also searched the UK National Research Register and websites listing ongoing trials, and contacted international experts in anaphylaxis in an attempt to locate unpublished material. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing glucocorticoids with any control (either placebo, adrenaline (epinephrine), an antihistamine, or any combination of these). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed articles for inclusion. MAIN RESULTS: We found no studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are, based on this review, unable to make any recommendations for the use of glucocorticoids in the treatment of anaphylaxis.

Glucocorticoids for the treatment of anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is a serious hypersensitivity reaction that is rapid in onset and may result in death. Anaphylaxis guidelines recommend glucocorticoids for the treatment of people experiencing anaphylaxis. OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticoid treatment during episodes of anaphylaxis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1966 to September 2009), EMBASE (Ovid) (1988 to September 2009), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (to September 2009) and The Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) (1945 to September 2009). We also searched the UK National Research Register and websites listing ongoing trials, and contacted international experts in anaphylaxis in an attempt to locate unpublished material. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing glucocorticoids with any control (either placebo, adrenaline (epinephrine), an antihistamine, or any combination of these). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed articles for inclusion. MAIN RESULTS: We found no studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are, based on this review, unable to make any recommendations for the use of glucocorticoids in the treatment of anaphylaxis.