Erythroderma and pneumonitis induced by penicillin?

Amoxicillin-Induced Eosinophilic Pneumonia with Granulomatous Reaction: Discrepancy between Drug-Induced Lymphocyte Stimulation Test Findings and the Provocation Drug Test

A 59-year-old man was admitted to the hospital with pulmonary infiltration, fever, erythema, and eosinophilia. Two weeks before admission, he received amoxicillin, acetaminophen, and shoseiryu-to (a Japanese herbal medicine) for a common cold. Bronchoalveolar lavage was performed, and an increased number of eosinophils was recovered. Transbronchial biopsy specimens showed granuloma and interstitial thickening with eosinophils and lymphocytes. Drug-induced eosinophilic pneumonia was suspected, so all drugs were discontinued. The symptoms and infiltration shadow disappeared. A drug-induced lymphocyte stimulation test (DLST) was positive for acetaminophen but not for amoxicillin. In contrast to the DLST, a provocation test revealed that amoxicillin induced the drug allergy. A very striking observation was the coexistence of pulmonary eosinophilia and granulomatous lung infiltrations. In addition, there was a discrepancy between the DLST and provocation test findings. To our knowledge, there is no previous report of drug-induced eosinophilic pneumonia with a granulomatous reaction.

Drug-induced lymphocyte stimulation test is not useful for the diagnosis of drug-induced pneumonia

Diagnosis of drug-induced pneumonia, which represents pulmonary toxicity caused by certain drugs, is difficult, as a large number of different drugs can elicit various immune-mediated diseases with distinct pathomechanisms. The drug-induced lymphocyte stimulation test (DLST) is widely used for diagnosing drug-induced pneumonia in Japan. Recent reports, however, indicate that DLST is not reliable for diagnosis of drug-induced pneumonia. To diagnose drug-induced pneumonia, a provocation test with the suspected drug is the most reliable method of assessing the relationship between the drug and pneumonia. We examined the correlation between the DLST and the provocation test in 6 cases of suspected drug-induced pneumonia. DLST was performed in all of the patients. The causes of pneumonia in all patients were confirmed by a provocation test. The DLST was positive in 3 of 6 cases of suspected drug-induced pneumonia, but the suspected drugs were ruled out by the provocation test. If we had relied solely on the DLST, these 3 cases would have been labeled as false allergy. The results of the DLST did not coincide with the results of the provocation test in any of the cases. Our results suggest that the DLST is not useful for the diagnosis of drug-induced pneumonia. Following provocation with the causative drug, reappearance of pulmonary infiltration was not observed in any of the cases. These findings indicate that a carefully performed provocation test is the safe and most reliable method.

Hypersensitivity pneumonitis and airways hyperreactivity induced by occupational exposure to penicillin

A patient with penicillin-induced hyperreactive airways in association with hypersensitivity pneumonitis is described. Patch tests and intradermal tests to penicillin were positive. Bronchoalveolar lavage demonstrated a relative lymphocytosis and mild neutrophilia. Symptoms and physiologic abnormalities of pulmonary function and gas exchange resolved on cessation of exposure to penicillin.