Skin reactions to hydroxyzine

The Role of Patch Testing in Evaluating Delayed Hypersensitivity Reactions to Medications

Confirming drug imputability is an important step in the management of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADR). Re-challenge is inconvenient and in many cases life threatening. We review the literature on ideal patch testing technique for specific CADRs. Testing should be performed approximately 3 months after the resolution of the eruption using standard patch testing techniques. Commercially available patch test preparations are available for a minority of drugs, so in most cases, testing should be performed with the drug at various recommended concentrations and in different vehicles. Testing to all known excipients, such as dyes, vehicles and preservatives is also important. Immunosuppressive medications should be discontinued or down titrated to the lowest tolerable dose to decrease the risk of false negative reactions. We provide an overview of expert recommendations and extant evidence on the utility of patch testing for identifying the culprit drug in common CADRs and for specific drug or drug classes. Overall, there appears to be significant variability in the patch test positivity of different drugs, which is likely the result of factors intrinsic to the drug such as dermal absorption (as a function of lipophilicity and molecular size) and whether the drug itself or a downstream metabolite is implicated in the immune reaction. Drugs with high patch test positivity rates include beta-lactam antibiotics, aromatic anticonvulsants, phenytoin, and corticosteroids, among others. Patch testing positivity varies both as a function of the drug and type of CADR. The sum of the evidence suggests that patch testing in the setting of morbilliform eruptions, fixed drug eruption, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, and possibly also drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome, photoallergic and eczematous reactions may be worthwhile, although utility of testing may vary on the specific drug in question for the eruption. It appears to be of limited utility and is not recommended in the setting of other complex CADR, such as SJS/TEN and leukocytoclastic vasculitis.

Rare drug allergies: Review on prevalence and test procedures

This paper gives a review on rare hypersensitivity reactions (including allergies) to drugs. Pathogenesis, allergy tests and possible therapeutic options are discussed by presenting examples out of the following group of drugs: antiinfectious (i.e. chinolones, telaprevir), oncological (i.e. platin-based cytostatics), immunologic (i.e. cetuximab, omalizumab), others (i.e. glucocorticosteroids). Usually there is no standardized allergologcial work-up procedure. Testing must therefore take into consideration previous experiences from other authors and on general recommendations.

Ultraviolet A photosensitivity profile of dexchlorpheniramine maleate and promethazine-based creams: Anti-inflammatory, antihistaminic, and skin barrier protection properties

BACKGROUND

Unwanted side effects such as dryness, hypersensitivity, and cutaneous photosensitivity are challenge for adherence and therapeutical success for patients using treatments for inflammatory and allergic skin response.

AIMS

In this study, we compared the effects of two dermatological formulations, which are used in inflammatory and/or allergic skin conditions: dexchlorpheniramine maleate (DCP; 10 mg/g) and promethazine (PTZ; 20 mg/g).

METHODS

We evaluated both formulations for phototoxicity potential, skin irritation, anti-inflammatory and antihistaminic abilities, and skin barrier repair in vitro and ex vivo using the standard OECD test guideline n° 432, the ECVAM protocol n° 78, and cultured skin explants from a healthy patient. Ultraviolet A was chosen as exogenous agent to induce allergic and inflammatory response.

RESULTS

Both PTZ and DCP promoted increases in interleukin-1 (IL-1) synthesis in response to ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation compared to control. However, the increase observed with PTZ was significantly greater than the DCP, indicating that the latter has a lower irritant potential. DCP also demonstrated a protective effect on UVA-induced leukotriene B4 and nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) synthesis. Conversely, PTZ demonstrates more robust UVA antihistaminic activity. Likewise, PTZ promoted a significantly greater increase in the production of involucrin and keratin 14, both associated with protective skin barrier property.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, these data suggest possible diverging UVA response mechanisms of DCP and PTZ, which gives greater insight into the contrasting photosensitizing potential between DCP and PTZ observed in the patients.

Baboon syndrome induced by hydroxyzine

Hydroxyzine-induced drug eruptions are very rare. We report here a typical case of drug-related Baboon syndrome or symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE) which was induced by hydroxyzine in a 60-year-old man. The diagnosis was confirmed by positive patch and oral accidental provocation tests with hydroxyzine. Patch tests and oral provocation tests with cetirizine and levocetirizine were negative. A review of the literature identified only 17 reported cases of hydroxyzine-induced drug eruptions. To the best of our knowledge, we report here the first case of hydroxyzine-induced SDRIFE.

Drug patch testing in systemic cutaneous drug allergy

Patch testing with the suspected compound has been reported to be helpful in determining the cause of a cutaneous adverse drug reaction (CADR) and in studying the pathophysiological mechanisms involved. The main advantages of drug patch tests are that they can be done with no hospital surveillance because they induce only rarely adverse reactions and that any commercialized form of a drug can be used. In contrast, intradermal tests can be performed only with injectable forms or with a pure and sterile form of the drug. It is advised to perform drug patch tests during the 6 months following the CADR as we do not know whether positive results will persist. Due to the possibility that a low concentration might yield false negative results, drug patch tests have to be performed with rather high concentrations of the commercialized form of the drug, mostly diluted at 30% in petrolatum and/or in water. For some drugs and severe CADR, it is necessary to tests with lower concentrations or in other vehicles. Drug patch tests are positive in ca. 32-50% of patients who have developed a CADR. The clinical relevance of drug patch tests depends on the clinical features of the CADR (valuable in testing generalized eczema, systemic contact dermatitis, maculopapular rash, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, fixed drug eruption) and on the involved drug. As false positive results can be observed, it is always necessary to consider the relevance of any positive drug patch test. Their specificity and their negative predictive value have not been yet determined.

Cutaneous drug eruption from cetirizine and hydroxyzine

Topical application of the antihistamines commonly leads to sensitization for patients, but skin reactions provoked by their systemic use are very rare. The antihistamines cetirizine and hydroxyzine are piperazine derivatives, on the structural basis of an ethylenediamine, but the cross-reactions between the 2 have rarely been reported. A 44-year-old man visited because of the generalized morbilliform eruptions with pruritus over his whole body, after intake of hydroxyzine (Ucerax) and azelastine (Azeptine), administered during a 2-day period for chronic urticaria. Previously, he had presented the same cutaneous reactions after oral administration of cetirizine (Lotec). Oral challenge tests performed with cetirizine and hydroxyzine led to the same cutaneous reactions. He was given the diagnosis of drug eruption from cetirizine and hydroxyzine, which suggests that there were cross-reactions among cetirizine, hydroxyzine, and ethylenediamine.

Urticarial intolerance reaction to cetirizine

The paradoxical acute exacerbation of pre-existing chronic idiopathic urticaria accompanied by intense generalized pruritus, facial oedema, and dyspnoea in a 36-year-old-woman 3-4 h after a single oral dose of 10 mg cetirizine (Zyrtec tablets), suggested the presence of an underlying intolerance reaction. However, a type I hypersensitivity reaction also had to be excluded. Detailed allergy testing supported the view that the patient had suffered an intolerance reaction to cetirizine. This is the third known case of most probably a nonallergic generalized urticaria following the administration of cetirizine, a drug with extensive usage worldwide. However a type I sensitization to cetirizine is indeed possible, as has been demonstrated in this research with the verification of cetirizine-specific IgE antibodies in one of the control sera.

Guidelines for performing skin tests with drugs in the investigation of cutaneous adverse drug reactions

Skin testing with a suspected drug has been reported to be helpful in determining the cause of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADR). Many isolated reports of positive drug skin tests are published, but without detailed information concerning the clinical features of the CADR and the method used in performing drug skin tests, such data are not very informative. A working party of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) for the study of skin testing in investigating cutaneous adverse drug reactions, has proposed the herein-reported guidelines for performing skin testing in CADR in order to standardize these procedures. In each reported case, the imputability of each drug taken at the onset of the CADR and a highly detailed description and characterization of the dermatitis need to be given. Drug skin tests are performed 6 weeks to 6 months after complete healing of the CADR. Drug patch tests are performed according to the methods used in patch testing in studying contact dermatitis. The commercialized form of the drug used by the patient is tested diluted at 30% pet. (pet.) and/or water (aq.). The pure drug is tested diluted at 10% in pet. or aq. In severe CADR, drug patch tests are performed at lower concentrations. It is also of value to test on the most affected site of the initial CADR. Drug prick tests are performed on the volar forearm skin with the commercialized form of the drug, but with sequential dilutions in cases of urticaria. Intradermal tests (IDT) are performed with sterile sequential dilutions (10-4, 10-3, 10-2, 10-1) of a pure sterile or an injectable form of the suspected drug with a small volume of 0.04 ml. Drug skin tests need to be read at 20 min and also later at D2 and D4 for patch tests, at D1 for prick tests and IDT. All these tests also need to be read at 1 week. The success of skin tests varies with the drug tested, with a high % of positive results, for example, with betalactam antibiotics, pristinamycin, carbamazepine and tetrazepam on patch testing, or with betalactam antibiotics and heparins on delayed readings of IDT. The results of drug skin tests also depend on the clinical features of the CADR. The use of appropriate control patients is necessary to avoid false-positive results.

The use of skin testing in the investigation of cutaneous adverse drug reactions

Skin testing with the suspected compound has been reported to be helpful in determining the cause of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (ADRs), but the value and specificity of these tests need to be determined. In this study, 72 patients with presumed drug eruptions (27 maculopapular, 18 urticarial, seven erythrodermic, nine eczematous, four photosensitivity, three fixed drug eruptions, three with pruritus and one with acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis) were assessed. All had drug patch tests; 46 also had prick tests and 30 had intradermal tests (performed on hospitalized patients using a sterile solution of the suspected drug, diluted sequentially) with immediate and delayed readings. Among these patients, 52 (72%) had a positive skin test reaction, 43%, 24% and 67% in patch, prick and intradermal skin tests, respectively. The results of skin tests varied with the drug tested and with the clinical type of cutaneous ADR, as a significantly higher number of positive patch tests was observed in maculopapular rashes than in urticarial reactions (P = 0.001). This study supports the value of careful sequential drug skin testing in establishing the cause of cutaneous ADR. Guidelines are proposed for performing these tests, and these include the use of appropriate negative control patients to avoid false-positive results.