In Situ Patch Test and Repeated Open Application Test for Fixed Drug Eruption: A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated allergy workup in fixed drug eruption (FDE) in a large population. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sensitivity of a standardized allergy workup for diagnosing the cause of FDE, with a focus on in situ repeated open application tests (ROATs). METHODS: In a retrospective multicenter study, we analyzed the practice of conducting a complete allergy workup for the etiological diagnosis of FDE. It consisted of 3 steps: in situ patch tests (PTs) for all cases except pure mucosal involvement, followed by in situ ROAT if in situ PT results were negative, and finally a drug challenge (DC). The in situ ROAT involved daily application of the suspected drug on a previously affected FDE site for 7 days. RESULTS: Of 98 suspected FDE cases, 61 patients (median age 61 y; male-to-female ratio 1.8) with a complete allergy workup were included. In 4 cases, even the DC yielded negative results. Among the remaining 57 patients with a positive workup, implicated drugs included paracetamol (12 cases), ß-lactams (11 cases), imidazoles (9 cases, including 5 with metronidazole), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (8 cases), iodinated contrast media (4 cases), cotrimoxazole (3 cases), and various other drugs in 10 patients. The diagnosis was confirmed by in situ PT in 17 of 54 cases (31.5%), in situ ROAT in 14 of 40 cases (35%) (with 4 cases showing remote reactivation of FDE sites), and DC in 26 cases. CONCLUSIONS: The sequential allergy workup involving successively in situ PT, in situ ROAT, and DC is a reliable and safe method for diagnosing the cause of FDE. In situ tests exhibited a sensitivity of over 50%.

Allergic contact dermatitis from essential oil in consumer products: Mode of uses and value of patch tests with an essential oil series. Results of a French study of the DAG (Dermato-Allergology group of the French Society of Dermatology).

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the clinical characteristics and sensitivity of an essential oil patch test series (EOS) in patients sensitized to their own essential oils (EOs). METHOD: We analysed the clinical data and patch test results obtained with the European baseline series (BSE) and an EOS, as well as the mode of use of EOs, through a questionnaire included in the patient file. RESULTS: The study included 42 patients (79% women, average age 50 years) with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), 8 patients required hospitalization. All patients were sensitized to the EO they used, primarily lavender (Lavandula augustifolia, 8000-28-0), tea tree (Melaleuca alternifolia leaf oil, 68647-73-4), ravintsara (Cinnamomum camphora oil, 92201-50-8), and 2 cases were attributed to helichrysum (helichrysum italicum flower absolute, 90045-56-0). 71% had positive patch tests to fragrance mix I or II, 9 only to the EOS and 4 only with their personal EO. Interestingly, 40% of patients did not spontaneously mention the use of EOs, and only 33% received advice on their use at the time of purchase. CONCLUSION: Patch tests with the BSE, limonene and linalool HP, and oxidized tea tree oil is sufficient to detect most EO-sensitized patients. The most important is to test the patient's own used EOs.

Skin Testing and Drug Provocation Tests in Epidermal Necrolysis: A French Experience.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the use of skin testing, other than patch testing, and challenges in the evaluation of epidermal necrolysis (EN), including Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis. OBJECTIVE: To report a French multicenter experience in skin testing and challenges in EN, and investigate the factors associated with tests' positivity. METHODS: All patients who were evaluated by patch tests (PTs), skin prick tests, intradermal tests (IDTs), or drug provocation tests (DPTs) for EN between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively included through 2 French drug reaction networks. RESULTS: In total, 113 patients were included from 8 centers. Median (interquartile range) time from EN to hypersensitivity workup was 7.9 months (5.1-15 months). All patients had PTs, 17 (15%) had skin prick tests or IDTs with delayed readings and 32 (28.3%) had DPTs. One mild reaction occurred after a DPT. Overall, 22 patients (19.5%) had positive PTs, and the only factors associated with positivity were Algorithm of Drug Causality for Epidermal Necrolysis (ALDEN) score and drug class. Only 1 IDT was positive but considered irrelevant. The DPTs were never performed to prove responsibility of a highly suspected drug but were used to confirm current tolerance of needed medications. CONCLUSIONS: Allergological workup in EN, performed by specialists involved in EN, seems safe. Skin tests, although of limited sensitivity, can be helpful for considering the reintroduction of essential drugs according to a benefit-to-risk decision. We propose an algorithm for approaching hypersensitivity testing in patients with EN, to be adapted to each patient.

Patch tests in nonimmediate cutaneous adverse drug reactions: The importance of late readings on day 4.

BACKGROUND: Patch tests (PTs) with two readings have been used for decades to identify the culprit drug in nonimmediate cutaneous adverse drug reactions (NICADRs), followed more recently by late reading of intradermal tests (IDTs). Some teams tend to perform PTs with only one reading before IDTs or even directly perform IDTs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relevance of a late PT reading on day 4 (D4) in NICADRs. METHODS: We retrospectively selected patients who had a PT for an NICADR between July 2014 and March 2020. RESULTS: During the study period, 328 patients had a PT with available results. Among the 75 positive-PT patients with available data for the two readings, 41 (54.7%) had positive results on D2 and D4 and 34 (45.3%) had negative results on D2 but positive results on D4. No patient had positive results on D2 and negative results on D4. CONCLUSION: This study shows that a D4 reading enhanced the PT-positive results. A positive PT result allows for reducing the number of IDTs, which are more difficult and costly to perform. Our series suggests that a late PT reading at D4 should be performed for exploring NICADRs.

Is a specific eyelid patch test series useful? Results of a French prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Eyelids are frequent sites of contact dermatitis. No prospective study focused on eyelid allergic contact dermatitis (EACD) has yet been published, and this topic has never been studied in French patients. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate the usefulness of an eyelid series in French patients patch tested because of EACD, and to describe these patients. METHODS: We prospectively analysed standardized data for all patients referred to our departments between September 2014 and August 2016 for patch testing for suspected EACD as the main reason. All patients were patch tested with an eyelid series, the European baseline series (EBS), the French additional series, and their personal products. Patch testing with additional series and repeated open application tests (ROATs) or open tests were performed if necessary. A standardized assessment of the relevance was used, and the analysis of the results was focused on patients having positive test results with a current certain relevance. RESULTS: Two-hundred and sixty-four patients (238 women and 26 men) were included. Three-hundred and twenty-two tests gave positive results in 167 patients, 84 of whom had currently relevant reactions: 56 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the EBS, 16 had currently relevant positive test reactions to their personal products, 8 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the French additional series, and 4 had currently relevant positive test reactions to the eyelid series. Sixty-seven per cent of all relevant cases were related to cosmetic products. The most frequent allergens with current relevance were methylisothiazolinone (10.2%), fragrance mix I (3%), nickel (2.7%), hydroxyperoxides of linalool (2.7%) and limonene (2.3%), and Myroxylon pereirae (2.3%). Current atopic dermatitis was found in 9.5% of patients. The duration of dermatitis was shorter (23.2 vs 34.2 months; P = .035) in patients with currently relevant test reactions. The percentage of currently relevant tests remained the same when atopic patients or dermatitis localized only on the eyelids were taken into account. CONCLUSION: In French patients, testing for EACD with the extended baseline series and personal products, also including ROATs and use tests, appears to be adequate, considering the currently relevant positive test reactions. The regular addition of an eyelid series does not seem to be necessary.

Patch testing in non-immediate cutaneous adverse drug reactions: value of extemporaneous patch tests.

BACKGROUND: Patch testing following a standardized protocol is reliable for identifying the culprit drug in cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs). However, these patch tests (PTs) require pharmaceutical material and staff, which are not always easily available. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate an extemporaneous PT method in CADRs. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed data for all patients referred to our department between March 2009 and June 2013 for patch testing after a non-immediate CADR. The patients who supplied their own suspected drugs were tested both with extemporaneous PTs and with conventional PTs. Extemporaneous PTs involved a nurse crushing and diluting the drug in pet. in a ratio of approximately one-third to two-thirds. Standardized PTs were performed according to guidelines, with commercial drugs diluted to 30% or with active ingredients diluted to 10%. We analysed the data for the two PT methods in terms of the number of positive test reactions, drugs tested, and type of CADR for patients in whom the two PT methods were used. RESULTS: In total, 75 of 156 patients underwent the two PT procedures, including 91 double tests. Overall, 21 tests gave positive reactions with the two methods, and 69 other tests gave negative results with the two methods. CONCLUSION: Our series yielded results similar to those of published series concerning the types of CADR and the drugs responsible. Our results suggest that, for CADRs, if a patient supplies a suspected drug but if the pharmaceutical material and staff are not available for conventional PTs, extemporaneous PTs performed by the nurse with the commercial drug used by the patient can be useful and reliable.