Allergic hypersensitivity to topical and systemic corticosteroids: a review

Perioperative Anaphylaxis: A Systematic Approach to Evaluate High-Risk Drug Allergy

Determining the etiology of perioperative anaphylaxis is a challenging task, as multiple medications are often administered simultaneously during anesthesia. This is compounded by the paucity of validated skin testing. While drug challenges are the definitive means of assessing for IgE-mediated drug allergy, they must be weighed with the risk of severe reaction. As such, multidisciplinary collaboration is warranted to ensure drug provocation testing is performed thoughtfully and safely. Here, we present a case of an 18-year-old male with juvenile kyphosis who underwent anesthesia prior to spinal fusion surgery. He was given intravenous fentanyl, propofol, dexamethasone, remifentanil, tranexamic acid, methadone, and cefazolin. Additionally, iodine, chlorhexidine, and tincture of benzoin were applied topically. Shortly after the start of anesthesia and prior to incision, he developed bronchospasm, hypoxia, hypotension, and pulseless electrical activity with a return of spontaneous circulation following cardiopulmonary resuscitation. A tryptase level drawn during the event was elevated at 23.7 μg/L (reference range: 0-11.4 μg/L). Months later, the patient underwent skin prick and intradermal testing in an allergy clinic, which was largely unrevealing for a culprit. Given the absence of validated predictive values for skin testing, drug provocation testing was performed with the patient admitted to the intensive care unit due to the high-risk nature of testing. Medications were selected for a challenge after multidisciplinary discussions with specialists in anesthesia and surgery based on the availability of alternative medications. Following negative drug provocation testing to intravenous dexamethasone, intravenous fentanyl, oral midazolam, intravenous methadone, and intravenous tranexamic acid, as well as topical challenges to chlorhexidine, iodine, and tincture of benzoin, the patient was instructed to continue to avoid cefazolin, propofol, and remifentanil and was able to subsequently undergo spinal fusion surgery safely. This case demonstrates a systematic approach for high-risk drug allergy testing that was facilitated by collaboration with allergy, intensive care, anesthesia, and surgery.

Positive patch testing to the corticosteroid series: a clinical conundrum

Hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids represent a clinical paradox as one would not expect such reactions to compounds with anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. Here we present the case of a patient with positive patch test results to the corticosteroid series.

Hydrocortisone-induced blood pressure reduction in a patient with anterior pituitary hypofunction: a case report

Hydrocortisone is widely used for the anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects and physiological substitute of endogenous glucocorticoid. Allergic reaction to hydrocortisone is infrequent, but once it occurs, it can affect the disease profile or survival of patients. The present study reported a case of hydrocortisone-induced blood pressure reduction in a patient with anterior pituitary hypofunction due to allergic reaction. The patient was admitted with burns. Anterior pituitary hypofunction was diagnosed during hospitalisation owing to persistent hyponatremia. During hydrocortisone intravenous administration, blood pressure was decreased to 70/40 mmHg, accompanied with flushed face and vasodilation. According to World Health Organization Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) causality assessment and Naranjo scale, there was a probable relationship of reduced blood pressure with hydrocortisone. To the best of our knowledge, we have presented the first case of an anaphylaxis reaction of blood pressure reduction following hydrocortisone administration in the anterior pituitary hypofunction patient.

Contact allergy to corticosteroids: Is the European baseline series sufficient?

BACKGROUND

Patients are consecutively screened for contact allergy to corticosteroids with budesonide and tixocortol-21-pivalate in the European baseline series. Centres using TRUE Test also include hydrocortisone-17-butyrate. A supplementary corticosteroid patch test series is used in case of suspicion of corticosteroid contact allergy or when a marker of corticosteroid contact allergy is positive.

OBJECTIVE

The aims were to evaluate (1) the efficacy of corticosteroids in the TRUE Test and (2) co-sensitization patterns.

METHODS

This retrospective study analysed patients patch tested with TRUE Test corticosteroids plus supplementary corticosteroid series in the period 2006-2020 at the Department of Dermatology and Allergy Centre, Odense University Hospital.

RESULTS

Of 1852 patients tested, 119 were sensitised to TRUE Test corticosteroids and supplementary testing found additional reactions to other corticosteroids in 19 of 119 patients. TRUE Test corticosteroids gave more positive and stronger reactions compared to allergens in petrolatum/ethanol. Fourteen percent of sensitised patients were co-sensitised to multiple corticosteroid groups. Baeck group 3 corticosteroids accounted for 9 of 16 patients not identified by TRUE Test.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide, hydrocortisone-17-butyrate, and tixocortol-21-pivalate in combination are sensitive corticosteroid markers. In case of clinical suspicion of corticosteroid contact allergy, patch testing with supplementary corticosteroids is highly recommended.

Nano drug delivery systems: a promising approach to scar prevention and treatment

Scar formation is a common physiological process that occurs after injury, but in some cases, pathological scars can develop, leading to serious physiological and psychological effects. Unfortunately, there are currently no effective means to intervene in scar formation, and the structural features of scars and their unclear mechanisms make prevention and treatment even more challenging. However, the emergence of nanotechnology in drug delivery systems offers a promising avenue for the prevention and treatment of scars. Nanomaterials possess unique properties that make them well suited for addressing issues related to transdermal drug delivery, drug solubility, and controlled release. Herein, we summarize the recent progress made in the use of nanotechnology for the prevention and treatment of scars. We examine the mechanisms involved and the advantages offered by various types of nanomaterials. We also highlight the outstanding challenges and questions that need to be addressed to maximize the potential of nanotechnology in scar intervention. Overall, with further development, nanotechnology could significantly improve the prevention and treatment of pathological scars, providing a brighter outlook for those affected by this condition.

Immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids - prevalence, diagnosis and treatment

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids, which are anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive agents used for the treatment of various diseases including allergic disorders, can induce immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions. Although these reactions are not common, due to the wide usage of corticosteroid medications, corticosteroid hypersensitivity reactions are clinically important.

OBJECTIVE

In this review, we summarise the prevalence, pathogenetic mechanism, clinical manifestations, risk factors, diagnostic and therapeutic approach for corticosteroid-induced hypersensitivity reactions.

METHODS

An integrative review of the literature was conducted using PubMed searches (mainly large cohort-based studies) regarding the different aspects of corticosteroid hypersensitivity.

RESULTS

Hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids can be immediate or delayed and can follow all modes of corticosteroid administration. Prick and intradermal skin tests are useful diagnostic tools for immediate hypersensitivity reactions, patch tests are useful for delayed hypersensitivity reactions. According to the diagnostic tests an alternative (safe) corticosteroid agent should be administered.

CONCLUSION

Physicians of all medical disciplines should be aware that corticosteroids can cause (paradoxically) immediate or delayed allergic hypersensitivity reactions. The diagnosis of such allergic reactions is challenging since it is often difficult to distinguish between hypersensitivity reactions and deterioration of the basic inflammatory disease (e.g., worsening of asthma or dermatitis). Thus, a high index of suspicion is needed in order to identify the culprit corticosteroid.

Antiallergic Effects of Callerya atropurpurea Extract In Vitro and in an In Vivo Atopic Dermatitis Model

(1) Background: Callerya atropurpurea is found in Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam. Although the anti-inflammatory action of C. atropurpurea has been investigated, the functions of this plant in allergic responses are not understood. Here, we explored the antiallergic mechanism of C. atropurpurea ethanol extract (Ca-EE) using in vitro assays and an in vivo atopic model. (2) Methods: The constituents of Ca-EE were analyzed using GC/MS. Inhibition of lipoxygenase and β-hexosaminidase activity was examined, and the expression of inflammatory genes was measured by quantitative real-time PCR. The regulatory roles of Ca-EE in IgE/FcεRI signaling were examined by Western blotting. The DNCB-induced atopic dermatitis mouse model was performed with histological analysis. (3) Results: Ca-EE comprised cis-raphasatin, lupeol, some sugars, and fatty acids. In RBL-2H3 cells, treatment with Ca-EE significantly reduced the activities of lipoxygenase and β-hexosaminidase, as well as cytokine gene expression. IgE-mediated signaling was downregulated by blocking Lyn kinases. Moreover, Ca-EE effectively inhibited allergic symptoms in the DNCB-induced atopic dermatitis model without toxicity. (4) Conclusions: Ca-EE displayed antiallergic activities through regulating IgE/Lyn signaling in RBL-2H3 cells and a contact dermatitis model. These results indicate that Ca-EE could be effective for allergic disease treatment.

Prevalence of contact allergy to corticosteroids in a Danish patient population

Background

Allergic contact dermatitis to corticosteroids can be a challenging diagnosis as corticosteroids are used in the treatment of dermatitis. The prevalence of contact allergy to corticosteroid varies between previous studies.

Objective

To study the prevalence of sensitization to budesonide, tixocortol‐21‐pivalate and hydrocortisone‐17‐butyrate in a Danish patient population from 2006‐2020, cross‐sensitization, risk factors and clinical relevance.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patch test data and MOAHLFA index was performed among 6823 patients consecutively patch tested with TRUE test as part of the baseline series.

Results

A positive patch test for corticosteroids was found in 185 patients (1.2% budesonide, 1.6% tixocortol‐21‐pivalate, 1.0% hydrocortisone‐17‐butyrate) without gender difference. For women, the prevalence of tixocortol‐21‐pivalate sensitization increased significantly from 1.3% in 2006–2008 to 2.9% in 2018–2020. Tixocortol‐21‐pivalate sensitization had more frequently clinical relevance in women (61.3%) compared to men (34.5%). Age above 40 years was positively associated to corticosteroid sensitization. Budesonide and hydrocortisone‐17‐butyrate accounted for 67.7% of co‐sensitizations.

Conclusions

The prevalence of corticosteroid sensitization was 2.7%. Age was the only risk factor for corticosteroid sensitization. The frequency of corticosteroid sensitization was stabile over time except for tixocortol‐21‐pivalate sensitization for women. About one third of sensitized patients had co‐sensitizations to other corticosteroid groups.

Lifestyle and Risk Factors in Hemorrhoidal Disease

Constipation, a low fiber diet, a high Body Mass Index, pregnancy, and a sedentary lifestyle are often assumed to increase the risk of hemorrhoidal disease (HD). However, evidence regarding these factors is controversial. This mini-review aims to examine and critically analyze the association between main risk factors and the prevalence of HD, focusing both on the patient's clinical history and on a tailored treatment. Moreover, some practical suggestions about lifestyle and conservative approaches are given to help clinicians in the management of patients with HD and to obtain the best results from therapy.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis From Topical Drugs: An Overview

ABSTRACT

Allergic contact dermatitis from topical drugs is frequent and is seen in 10% to 17% of patients patch tested for suspected contact dermatitis. More than 360 drugs have been implicated as contact allergens, of which-generally-antibiotics, corticosteroids, local anesthetics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the most frequent culprits. This article provides an overview of allergic contact dermatitis to topical drugs, discussing their prevalence of sensitization, predisposing factors, clinical manifestations (both typical and atypical), the drugs described as allergens, cross-reactivity and coreactivity, and diagnostic procedures.

Methylprednisolone-induced anaphylaxis diagnosed by intradermal skin test: a case report

Background

Glucocorticoids rarely cause anaphylaxis. Common methods for the determination of allergens include in vivo skin prick test (SPT) and intradermal skin test (IDST) and the in vitro basophil activation test (BAT). However, to our knowledge, the best strategy for diagnosing glucocorticoid-induced anaphylaxis has not been elucidated.

Case presentation

A 10-year-old boy was admitted to our hospital because of 2 weeks of fever and arthralgia. He had not been treated with glucocorticoids before, including methylprednisolone (mPSL). He was suspected to have bacterial myositis and was treated with ceftriaxone. However, his symptoms persisted for > 2 weeks. Autoinflammatory arthritis was suspected, and he was treated with mPSL sodium succinate (MPS) pulse therapy (30 mg/kg). After 15 min of mPSL injection, he had wheezing and generalized wheal formation with decreased oxygen saturation. As anaphylaxis was suspected, mPSL was discontinued, and olopatadine and oxygen were administered. The symptoms improved considerably without the use of epinephrine and disappeared in 30 min. One month after discharge, SPT, IDST, and BAT were performed without discontinuing his prescribed oral prednisolone. SPTs for MPS, hydrocortisone sodium succinate (HCS), prednisolone sodium succinate (PSS), dexamethasone sodium phosphate (DSP), and betamethasone sodium phosphate (BSP) were negative. IDSTs for MPS, HCS, and PSS were positive, whereas those for DSP and BSP were negative. By contrast, BATs for MPS, HCS, and PSS were negative. Although glucocorticoid-induced hypersensitivity caused by nonmedicinal ingredients such as lactose, carboxymethylcellulose, polyethylene glycol, and hexylene glycol has been reported; the glucocorticoids tested in this patient did not contain any of these nonmedicinal ingredients. As the glucocorticoids that were positive on IDST share a succinate ester, this might have caused MPS-induced anaphylaxis.

Conclusions

We report the case of MPS-induced anaphylaxis diagnosed by IDST but not BAT. In case reports of glucocorticoid-induced anaphylaxis in the literature, most patients were diagnosed with SPT or IDST. These results suggest that BAT should be considered when IDST and SPT are negative. Further studies are necessary to clarify the best strategy for diagnosing glucocorticoid-induced anaphylaxis.

Multiple corticosteroids allergy in a patient with asthma: a case report

Background

Allergy towards systemic corticosteroid is rare. This case report discusses the investigations to confirm diagnosis and alternative treatments.

Case presentation

A 51-year-old asthmatic woman developed severe anaphylactic reaction following administration of systemic hydrocortisone. Skin prick, intradermal, and intravenous provocation tests confirmed allergy to triamcinolone, hydrocortisone, and dexamethasone. Skin prick tests (SPTs) were negative to all the aforementioned drugs. Intradermal test (IDT) with triamcinolone 1:10 concentration resulted in a 2-mm wheal associated with rhonchi. IDT with hydrocortisone 1:10 concentration showed an 8-mm wheal with rhonchi. IDTs to dexamethasone and carboxymethylcellulose were negative. Generalized rhonchi were observed with intravenous dexamethasone full concentration challenge.

Conclusions

Corticosteroid allergy should be suspected in asthma patients with worsening bronchospasm after its administration. Due to its rarity, such diagnosis can easily be missed, resulting in increased morbidity and mortality in patients.

Diagnosis and management of the drug hypersensitivity reactions in Coronavirus disease 19: An EAACI Position Paper

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a respiratory tract infection caused by a novel human coronavirus, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, leads to a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations ranging from asymptomatic cases to patients with mild and severe symptoms, with or without pneumonia. Given the huge influence caused by the overwhelming COVID-19 pandemic affecting over three million people worldwide, a wide spectrum of drugs is considered for the treatment in the concept of repurposing and off-label use. There is no knowledge about the diagnosis and clinical management of the drug hypersensitivity reactions that can potentially occur during the disease. This review brings together all the published information about the diagnosis and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions due to current and candidate off-label drugs and highlights relevant recommendations. Furthermore, it gathers all the dermatologic manifestations reported during the disease for guiding the clinicians to establish a better differential diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions in the course of the disease.

Allergy against Steroids in Ocular Inflammation

Allergy to steroids is an uncommon and harmful condition that leads to a decrease in treatment options and increase in morbidity due to the suboptimal disease control. It can manifest as an immediate response or a delay manifestation. Worsening of underlying condition and not treatment response can indicate corticosteroids hypersensitivity as well. Despite its low prevalence, all clinicians should be aware of this condition and know the treatment options. This narrative review attempts to update information about corticosteroid allergy and we present a case of a patient with the diagnosis of Vogt Koyanagi Harada Syndrome with a history of steroids allergy, as an example, to integrate this information to the ocular inflammation field.

Differential diagnosis of late-type reactions to injected local anaesthetics: Inflammation at the injection site is the only indicator of allergic hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis-like reactions developing within a few minutes are the most frequent complications of subcutaneous or submucosal injections of local anaesthetics (LAs), and topically applied LAs are potential contact allergens. In addition, injected LAs have been reported to induce delayed reactions, including local inflammation at the injection site, and various general symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the frequency and symptoms of late-type hypersensitivity occurring several hours after LA injections.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated clinical data and test results from all patients referred to our allergy clinic in a period of 20 years for diagnostic work-up of LA-associated late-type reactions.

RESULTS

Of 202 patients reporting symptoms with onset at least 1 hour after LA injection, 40 had cutaneous inflammation confined to the injection site, and 162 reported various systemic symptoms. LA hypersensitivity could be excluded in all patients with systemic complaints by means of skin testing and subsequent subcutaneous provocation. In 8 of the 40 patients (20%) with local inflammatory reactions, late-type allergic LA hypersensitivity was confirmed.

CONCLUSIONS

Late-type LA allergy commonly causes inflammatory skin reactions confined to the injection site. Conversely, LAs are highly unlikely to trigger delayed systemic symptoms such as urticarial or exanthematous skin eruptions.

Pediatric drug hypersensitivity: which diagnostic tests?

Along with the anamnesis and clinical evaluation, diagnostic tests are one of the mainstream key points in the evaluation and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR). A wide knowledge gap, both in diagnosis and management of pediatric DHR, must be filled.  Only a few published studies evaluated sensitivity and specificity of skin and in vitro tests in children. However, selected case series show that diagnostic work-up for adults could be useful, with some limitations, in pediatric age. Indeed, despite improvement in in vivo and in vitro diagnosis, drug provocation test remains the gold standard in pediatric age, too. Unmet needs in children include multi-centric studies on incidence of DHR, utility and feasibility of in vivo and in vitro diagnostic tests and specifically dedicated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of DHR in children.

Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions in Korean Pediatric Patients: A Study From the Korea SCAR Registry

PURPOSE

Although severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions (SCARs) are rare, they are associated with high morbidity and mortality, and thus early diagnosis and treatment are critical for improving prognoses. However, few studies have reported the characteristics of SCARs in children. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics, current management and prognosis of pediatric SCARs.

METHODS

We analyzed pediatric data in the Korean SCARs registry, which was built retrospectively in 2016 with SCAR cases treated in 34 tertiary referral university hospitals during 2010-2015. Using these cases, we descriptively analyzed detailed data regarding etiology, clinical and laboratory features, treatment strategies, and prognosis.

RESULTS

Forty-seven pediatric SCAR cases from 15 tertiary referral hospitals were included. The median patient age was 10 (interquartile range, 3-15.5) years and 68.1% (n = 32) were males. The culprit drug was identified in 95.7% (n = 45) of the patients; antibiotics (44.7%) and antiepileptic drugs (19.1%) were the most common and second most common culprits, respectively. Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms (DRESS) cases presented with the largest area of skin involvement without permanent sequelae. Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) cases involved relatively small areas of skin but serious sequelae in two children. Of 4 patients with toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), 1 died. Of all patients assessed, 36 (76.6%) received systemic steroids and 21 (44.7%) received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Thirteen (27.7%) received both systemic steroids and IVIG. Cyclosporine was administered to only 1 patient along with a systemic steroid.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with pediatric SCARs, including those with DRESS, SJS and TEN, clinical presentations were variable. Thus, there was no clear continuous disease spectrum. Although the mortality rate was low (2.1%), clinical suspicion may be the best tool for proactive SCAR management.

Update: methodological principles and scientific methods to be taken into account when establishing Reference Points for Action (RPAs) for non-allowed pharmacologically active substances present in food of animal origin

EFSA was asked by the European Commission to update the Scientific Opinion on methodological principles and scientific methods to be taken into account when establishing Reference Points for Action (RPAs) for non‐allowed pharmacologically active substances in food of animal origin. This guidance document presents a simple and pragmatic approach which takes into account both analytical and toxicological considerations. The RPA shall be based on the reasonably achievable lowest residue concentration that can unequivocally be determined by official control laboratories, i.e. the reasonably achievable lowest decision limit (CCα). The aim is to check whether this concentration is low enough to adequately protect the consumers of food commodities that contain that substance. The proposed step‐wise approach applies toxicological screening values (TSVs), based on genotoxic potential, pharmacological activity, as well as other effects of the substance. The highest dietary exposure corresponding to the reasonably achievable lowest CCα for the substance has to be estimated and compared with the TSV. Where equal to or lower than the TSV, the reasonably achievable lowest CCα can be accepted as the RPA. If higher, the sensitivity of the analytical method needs to be improved. In the case where no further analytical improvements are feasible within a short to medium time frame, a substance‐specific risk assessment should be considered. This also applies when the potential adverse effects do not allow use of the decision tree, as for high potency carcinogens, inorganic substances or compounds with allergenic effects or causing blood dyscrasias. The CONTAM Panel concluded that RPAs should be food matrix independent. RPAs cannot be applied to non‐edible matrices, which are also monitored for non‐allowed pharmacologically active substances.

Two cases of anaphylactic shock by methylprednisolone in neuromyelitis optica

Steroid pulse therapy with methylprednisolone (mPSL) succinate ester is the most common treatment for neuromyelitis optica (NMO); no cases of anaphylaxis have been reported to date. Here, we report two cases of anaphylactic shock induced by mPSL pulse therapy in patients with NMO and concurrent systemic lupus erythematosus. Both patients had received several courses of mPSL pulse therapy without any problems previously. Repeated mPSL pulse therapy and comorbid humoral autoimmune disease might increase the risk of anaphylaxis. Corticosteroids without succinate esters should be considered as an alternative therapy to prevent anaphylaxis.

Immediate Hypersensitivity Reactions Induced by Triamcinolone in a Patient with Atopic Dermatitis

Corticosteroids are potent anti-inflammatory and anti-allergic agents used in the treatment of various inflammatory diseases, including allergic disease. They are frequently considered the therapy-of-choice for many skin diseases. However, allergic reactions caused by corticosteroids have been reported. Among these, delayed reactions to topical steroids are more common, whereas immediate reactions to systemic steroids are rare. Herein, we report the case of a 32-year-old woman with triamcinolone-induced immediate hypersensitivity reaction, in which the patient had a positive prick test result with triamcinolone. She has had atopic dermatitis (AD) for three years. She had used systemic steroid, cyclosporine, and antihistamine with topical steroids for AD. In clinic, approximately 10 minutes after intralesional injection of triamcinolone, she complained of erythematous patches with slight elevation and itching on the face, trunk, and both hands. After intravenous injection of dexamethasone, her symptoms got worse. After treatment with epinephrine, all symptoms resolved within two hours. We performed an open test and skin prick test. She had a positive result only from the prick test with triamcinolone; all other steroids showed negative results from the open tests. Dermatologists should be aware of the possibility of anaphylaxis or other allergic hypersensitivity in response to corticosteroids.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Hoarseness (Dysphonia) (Update)

Objective

This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on treating patients who present with dysphonia, which is characterized by altered vocal quality, pitch, loudness, or vocal effort that impairs communication and/or quality of life. Dysphonia affects nearly one-third of the population at some point in its life. This guideline applies to all age groups evaluated in a setting where dysphonia would be identified or managed. It is intended for all clinicians who are likely to diagnose and treat patients with dysphonia.

Purpose

The primary purpose of this guideline is to improve the quality of care for patients with dysphonia, based on current best evidence. Expert consensus to fill evidence gaps, when used, is explicitly stated and supported with a detailed evidence profile for transparency. Specific objectives of the guideline are to reduce inappropriate variations in care, produce optimal health outcomes, and minimize harm. For this guideline update, the American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation selected a panel representing the fields of advanced practice nursing, bronchoesophagology, consumer advocacy, family medicine, geriatric medicine, internal medicine, laryngology, neurology, otolaryngology–head and neck surgery, pediatrics, professional voice, pulmonology, and speech-language pathology.

Action Statements

The guideline update group made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (1) Clinicians should assess the patient with dysphonia by history and physical examination to identify factors where expedited laryngeal evaluation is indicated. These include, but are not limited to, recent surgical procedures involving the head, neck, or chest; recent endotracheal intubation; presence of concomitant neck mass; respiratory distress or stridor; history of tobacco abuse; and whether the patient is a professional voice user. (2) Clinicians should advocate voice therapy for patients with dysphonia from a cause amenable to voice therapy. The guideline update group made recommendations for the following KASs: (1) Clinicians should identify dysphonia in a patient with altered voice quality, pitch, loudness, or vocal effort that impairs communication or reduces quality of life (QOL). (2) Clinicians should assess the patient with dysphonia by history and physical examination for underlying causes of dysphonia and factors that modify management. (3) Clinicians should perform laryngoscopy, or refer to a clinician who can perform laryngoscopy, when dysphonia fails to resolve or improve within 4 weeks or irrespective of duration if a serious underlying cause is suspected. (4) Clinicians should perform diagnostic laryngoscopy, or refer to a clinician who can perform diagnostic laryngoscopy, before prescribing voice therapy and document/communicate the results to the speech-language pathologist (SLP). (5) Clinicians should advocate for surgery as a therapeutic option for patients with dysphonia with conditions amenable to surgical intervention, such as suspected malignancy, symptomatic benign vocal fold lesions that do not respond to conservative management, or glottic insufficiency. (6) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, botulinum toxin injections for the treatment of dysphonia caused by spasmodic dysphonia and other types of laryngeal dystonia. (7) Clinicians should inform patients with dysphonia about control/preventive measures. (8) Clinicians should document resolution, improvement or worsened symptoms of dysphonia, or change in QOL of patients with dysphonia after treatment or observation. The guideline update group made a strong recommendation against 1 action: (1) Clinicians should not routinely prescribe antibiotics to treat dysphonia. The guideline update group made recommendations against other actions: (1) Clinicians should not obtain computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients with a primary voice complaint prior to visualization of the larynx. (2) Clinicians should not prescribe antireflux medications to treat isolated dysphonia, based on symptoms alone attributed to suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), without visualization of the larynx. (3) Clinicians should not routinely prescribe corticosteroids for patients with dysphonia prior to visualization of the larynx. The policy level for the following recommendation about laryngoscopy at any time was an option: (1) Clinicians may perform diagnostic laryngoscopy at any time in a patient with dysphonia.

Disclaimer

This clinical practice guideline is not intended as an exhaustive source of guidance for managing dysphonia (hoarseness). Rather, it is designed to assist clinicians by providing an evidence-based framework for decision-making strategies. The guideline is not intended to replace clinical judgment or establish a protocol for all individuals with this condition, and it may not provide the only appropriate approach to diagnosing and managing this problem. Differences from Prior Guideline (1) Incorporation of new evidence profiles to include the role of patient preferences, confidence in the evidence, differences of opinion, quality improvement opportunities, and any exclusion to which the action statement does not apply (2) Inclusion of 3 new guidelines, 16 new systematic reviews, and 4 new randomized controlled trials (3) Inclusion of a consumer advocate on the guideline update group (4) Changes to 9 KASs from the original guideline (5) New KAS 3 (escalation of care) and KAS 13 (outcomes) (6) Addition of an algorithm outlining KASs for patients with dysphonia

Immediate and Delayed Hypersensitivity Reactions to Corticosteroids: Evaluation and Management

Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory medications used widely to treat allergic inflammation. Although the endocrine and gastrointestinal side effects of corticosteroids have been described, the occurrence of immediate hypersensitivity reactions and delayed contact dermatitis due to corticosteroids remains under-recognized. Hypersensitivity reactions can occur to a corticosteroid itself, or to the additives and vehicles in corticosteroid preparations. Skin testing and oral graded challenge can help confirm the suspected culprit agent in immediate hypersensitivity reactions and help identify an alternative tolerated corticosteroid. Patch testing can help identify the culprit agents in delayed hypersensitivity contact dermatitis. Cross-reactivity patterns have not been observed for immediate hypersensitivity reactions as they have been for delayed contact dermatitis. Sensitization in contact dermatitis exhibits cross-reactivity patterns based on corticosteroid structure. We review the current understanding regarding the clinical presentation, evaluation, and management of immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids.

Delayed hypersensitivity reaction to intralesional triamcinolone acetonide following treatment for alopecia areata. Intradermal testing

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity reactions to intralesional corticosteroids are very rare and have been infrequently reported. Patch testing is considered the gold standard for diagnosing contact allergic dermatitis. However, intradermal testing is thought to be more accurate and sensitive in selected cases.

MAIN OBSERVATION

We describe a case of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction to intralesional triamcinolone acetonide following the treatment of alopecia areata. Patch testing to triamcinolone was negative but intradermal testing with a small volume of the same reagent elicited a strong reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Patch testingmay be unsuccessful in detecting delayed reactions to intralesional corticosteroids. In such cases intradermal testing at a non-cosmetically sensitive sitemay be a useful diagnostic tool.

Hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids

Hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids (CS) are rare in the general population, but they are not uncommon in high-risk groups such as patients who receive repeated doses of CS. Hypersensitivity reactions to steroids are broadly divided into two categories: immediate reactions, typically occurring within 1 h of drug administration, and non-immediate reactions, which manifest more than an hour after drug administration. The latter group is more common. We reviewed the literature using the search terms "hypersensitivity to steroids, adverse effects of steroids, steroid allergy, allergic contact dermatitis, corticosteroid side effects, and type I hypersensitivity" to identify studies or clinical reports of steroid hypersensitivity. We discuss the prevalence, mechanism, presentation, evaluation, and therapeutic options in corticosteroid hypersensitivity reactions. There is a paucity of literature on corticosteroid allergy, with most reports being case reports. Most reports involve non-systemic application of corticosteroids. Steroid hypersensitivity has been associated with type I IgE-mediated allergy including anaphylaxis. The overall prevalence of type I steroid hypersensitivity is estimated to be 0.3-0.5%. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is the most commonly reported non-immediate hypersensitivity reaction and usually follows topical CS application. Atopic dermatitis and stasis dermatitis of the lower extremities are risk factors for the development of ACD from topical CS. Patients can also develop hypersensitivity reactions to nasal, inhaled, oral, and parenteral CS. A close and detailed evaluation is required for the clinician to confirm the presence of a true hypersensitivity reaction to the suspected drug and choose the safest alternative. Choosing an alternative CS is not only paramount to the patient's safety but also ameliorates the worry of developing an allergic, and potentially fatal, steroid hypersensitivity reaction. This evaluation becomes especially important in high-risk groups where steroids are a life-saving treatment. The assessment should be done when the patient's underlying condition is in a quiescent state.

Systemic glucocorticoids: important issues and practical guidelines for the dermatologist

BACKGROUND

The potent anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects of systemic glucocorticoids have led to their wide use in the treatment of dermatologic diseases. However, glucocorticoids have been designated the "archetypal double-edged sword of medicine" as a result of their various potential adverse side effects. Dermatologists face major challenges in their usage and require knowledge of both the risks related to their usage and strategies with which to manage them.

OBJECTIVES

This brief review includes an evidence-based, strategic approach to the general risk management of systemic glucocorticoids with a focus on preventing glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP).

METHODS

We assess which classes of corticosteroid are most likely to provoke allergic cross-reactions and outline the mechanism for glucocorticoid resistance. We examine how glucocorticoids both help and impair normal physiology.

RESULTS

Five reactivity groups are defined, based on the structural and clinical characteristics of glucocorticoids. Tests for allergy reactions and mechanisms for glucocorticoid resistance are described. Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of GIOP are introduced.

CONCLUSION

Glucocorticoids play an important teleologic role in maintaining blood glucose levels adequate for brain function by inducing a catabolic state through the production of carbohydrates at the expense of proteins and fat stores. It is hoped that the various recommendations for the protection of patients treated with systemic glucocorticoids will provide physicians with practical guidelines for prescribing.

Foods, Drugs and Environmental Factors: Novel Kounis Syndrome Offenders

Kounis syndrome is hypersensitivity coronary disorder induced by various types of environmental exposures, drugs, conditions and stents. Allergic, hypersensitivity, anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions are associated with this syndrome. The disorder manifests as coronary spasms, acute myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis and affects the cerebral and mesenteric as well as coronary arteries. Importantly, its manifestations are broad and its etiology is continuously increasing. Recently, a variety of unusual etiologies have been reported including Anisakis simplex, scombroid syndrome, the use of Gelofusin or ultrasound contrast agents, kiwifruit, fly bites, and bee stings. Furthermore, losartan and the paradox of corticosteroid allergy have been implicated as possible causes. Although not rare, Kounis syndrome is infrequently diagnosed. Therefore, awareness of its etiology, manifestations and pathophysiology is important for providing the proper diagnosis and treatment and determining prognosis.

Anaphylaxis induced by oral methylprednisolone in a 10-year-old boy

Corticosteroids are potent anti-inflammatory and anti-allergic agents used in the treatment of various inflammatory diseases, including allergic diseases. Allergic reactions caused by corticosteroids, however, have been reported. Among these, delayed reactions to topical steroids are more common, whereas immediate reactions to systemic steroids are rare. Herein, we report the case of a 10-year old boy with methylprednisolone-induced anaphylaxis, in which the patient had a positive oral challenge test result. Physicians should be aware of the possibility of anaphylaxis or other allergic hypersensitivity in response to corticosteroids.

Immediate and delayed hypersensitivity to systemic corticosteroids: 2 case reports

BACKGROUND

Both immediate, type I reactions and delayed hypersensitivity, type IV reactions to systemic corticosteroid preparations have been reported. Type I reactions are rare, with delayed hypersensitivity reactions being slightly more common.

CASES

A 33-year-old woman presented repeatedly to the emergency department with asthma attacks. She developed pruritus and hives approximately 30 minutes after the administration of parenteral corticosteroids. Her respiratory status deteriorated approximately 6 hours after she received the corticosteroids. An acute eczematous dermatitis on her face, neck, and upper body appeared 24 hours after administration of the corticosteroids. The dermatitis peaked at 72 hours. Intradermal testing to Solu-Medrol, Solu-Cortef, prednisone, and Decadron confirmed a type I, anaphylactoid reaction. The dermatitis that presented 24 hours after administration of the parenteral corticosteroids is consistent clinically with a type IV delayed hypersensitivity reaction to the corticosteroids. A second patient, a 51-year-old woman, developed urticarial lesions that lasted approximately 30 minutes, immediately after intralesional triamcinolone injections for keloid scars. Intradermal testing was performed. She showed a positive reaction to triamcinolone confirming a type I allergy to this steroid.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to consider an allergy to corticosteroids in patients with worsening anaphylactic symptoms after administration of systemic corticosteroids.

Methylprednisolone sodium succinate-associated macroglossia in a critically ill patient

Allergic hypersensitivity reactions are a rare adverse effect of corticosteroids. Previous reports have identified patients who developed symptoms of urticaria, dyspnea, hypotension, bronchospasm, and angioedema occurring within minutes to an hour after corticosteroid administration. A 35-year-old woman is described who developed an atypical reaction of isolated macroglossia after receiving intravenous methylprednisolone sodium succinate for myasthenic crisis. Macroglossia was identified on day 2 of therapy and worsened through day 5. On day 5, she was transitioned to prednisone 50 mg daily administered by feeding tube. Tongue swelling improved by day 7 and on day 10, the patient was extubated. The patient required reintubation due to stridor, but received a tracheostomy and was weaned off mechanical ventilation by day 15. The reaction was not confirmed with skin-prick tests, intradermal tests, or a drug rechallenge; however, she had previously received and tolerated all other drugs administered during this time. Due to the timing of administration and onset of symptoms, we feel this adverse drug reaction was likely due to administration of methylprednisolone. Applying the Naranjo adverse drug reaction probability scale to this case, a score of six was obtained, indicating a probable association between the administration of methylprednisolone and the development of macroglossia. As intravenous corticosteroids are often used in the treatment of allergic reactions, they may be overlooked as a cause of macroglossia and other allergic reactions; therefore, practitioners need to be aware of the possibility of this adverse effect secondary to corticosteroid administration. In the event of methylprednisolone sodium succinate-induced macroglossia, alternative nonesterified corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone or prednisone, should be considered if continuation of therapy is required.

Intradermal sex hormone desensitization for relief of premenstrual symptoms may improve the obstetric outcome of women with recurrent pregnancy loss

The aim of this study was to determine whether women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) and concurrent premenstrual syndrome (PMS) who underwent desensitization with sex hormones had an improved obstetric outcome. This manuscript summarizes a 10 year open label prospective follow up study of 26 women with RPL, aged 25-42 with 3-8 previous miscarriages and PMS, who had hormone hypersensitivity on skin testing. Skin testing was positive to estradiol in 23 women, progesterone in 20 women and to both estrogen and progesterone in 17 women. Amelioration of the symptoms of PMS (according to the VAS) was seen in 21 of 26 patients after desensitization with small doses of sex hormones intradermally. There was long term and stable reduction of severe PMS in 21 of 26 patients after desensitization. Five women conceived after skin testing, prior to desensitization. Sixteen of 26 women (61%) had subsequent live births. Five women had two subsequent live births in the subsequent pregnancy. There were no obstetric complications. Five women had two subsequent pregnancies with live births. It seems that correction of sex hormone hypersensitivity was accompanied by relief of persistent PMS, may have a positive effect on the chances of a successful pregnancy.