RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patch tests (PTs) are recommended to identify the culprit drug in non-immediate cutaneous adverse drug reactions (NICADRs). We recently reported that, in patients with NICADRs, a unique reading of PTs at day (D)2 compared with an additional second late reading at D4 missed almost half (45.3%) of the positive PTs. OBJECTIVES: To assess the change in sensitivity of the PT reading on D4 compared with the reading on D3. METHODS: We performed a retrospective (July 2020-June 2023) monocentric study of patients who had PTs with two readings for a NICADR. We compared reading on D3 and the second reading on D4 for the suspected drug (primary outcome) and for the related drugs tested simultaneously (secondary outcome). RESULTS: During the study period, 249 patients underwent patch testing with D3 and D4 readings. Regarding the primary outcome, the first reading at D3 was positive for 13.7% of patients, and the reading at D4 for 24.9% of patients (p < 0.0001). Regarding the secondary outcome, only 9.6% of patients had all their positive PT at D3 compared with 24.9% of patients at D4 (p < 0.0001). Considering the evaluated drug classes, no statistical difference was observed. However, we highlight that D3 reading detected all positive carbamazepine PTs (n = 3) while positive clindamycin PTs (n = 4) were identified only with the help of the second reading on D4. CONCLUSION: This study showed that, an additional D4 reading compared with a single D3 reading enhanced the sensitivity of PTs to identify culprit drugs and related. Further studies should replicate these findings and evaluate the medico-economic balance and safety of a single reading of PTs on D4.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The occurrence of immune-related myositis (irM) is increasing, yet there are no therapeutic guidelines. We sought to analyse the current therapeutic strategies of irM and evaluate the outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) rechallenge. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide retrospective study between April 2018 and March 2020 including irM without myocardial involvement. Depending on the presence of cutaneous signs or unusual histopathological features, patients were classified into two groups: typical or atypical irM. Therapeutic strategies were analysed in both groups. The modalities and outcomes of ICI rechallenge were reviewed. RESULTS: Among the 20 patients, 16 presented typical irM. Regardless of severity, most typical irM were treated with steroid monotherapy (n = 14/16) and all had a complete response within ≤3 weeks. The efficacy of oral steroids for non-severe typical irM (n = 10) was the same with low-dose (≤0.5 mg/kg/day) or high-dose (1 mg/kg/day). Severe typical irM were successfully treated with intravenous methylprednisolone. Atypical irM (n = 4) had a less favourable evolution, including one irM-related death, and required heavy immunosuppression. ICIs were safely reintroduced in nine patients presenting a moderate (n = 6) or a severe (n = 3) irM. CONCLUSION: Our data highlight that steroid monotherapy is an effective treatment for typical irM, either with prednisone or with intravenous methylprednisone pulses depending on the severity. The identification of unusual features is important in determining the initial therapeutic strategy. The outcomes of rechallenged patients are in favour of a safe reintroduction of ICI following symptom resolution and creatin kinase (CK) normalization in moderate and severe forms of irM.