The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2022
Utility and Safety of Skin Tests in Drug Reaction With Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms (DRESS): A Systematic Review.
Систематический обзорМетаанализСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Teo Ying Xin, Friedmann Peter Simon, Polak Marta Ewa, Ardern-Jones Michael Roger
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Determination of culprit drug in drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is crucial. Skin tests have been used, although it remains unclear how sensitive these are.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the value of skin tests in the assessment of drug causality in DRESS.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted for publications from 1996 onward of skin tests (skin prick test = SPT, patch test = PT, intradermal test = IDT) performed in clearly defined DRESS cases. Outcomes of testing, drug culpability assessments, and challenge test data were extracted.
RESULTS: A total of 17 articles met inclusion criteria. In 290 patients with DRESS, patch testing was most frequent (PT = 97.2% [n = 282], IDT = 12.4% [n = 36], SPT = 3.1% [n = 9]). Positive results were noted in 58.4% (n = 160 of 282) of PTs, 66.5% of IDTs, and 25% of SPTs. When confidence of drug causality was high (n = 73 of 194), testing did not correlate well with clinical suspicion: PTs, 37.6%; IDTs, 36.5%. Direct comparison of skin testing with provocation testing (n = 12) showed 83.3% correlation. Positive IDT results were reported in 8 negative PT cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Skin tests, particularly PTs and IDTs, have been reported as tools for diagnosis of causal drugs in DRESS. Heterogeneity in methodology, results analysis, and reporting of cohorts make meta-analysis to determine sensitivity and specificity of published literature impossible and highlight weaknesses in the field. We propose that international collaboration is essential to harmonize the methodology and reporting measures from hypersensitivity testing studies in larger cohorts.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the value of skin tests in the assessment of drug causality in DRESS.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted for publications from 1996 onward of skin tests (skin prick test = SPT, patch test = PT, intradermal test = IDT) performed in clearly defined DRESS cases. Outcomes of testing, drug culpability assessments, and challenge test data were extracted.
RESULTS: A total of 17 articles met inclusion criteria. In 290 patients with DRESS, patch testing was most frequent (PT = 97.2% [n = 282], IDT = 12.4% [n = 36], SPT = 3.1% [n = 9]). Positive results were noted in 58.4% (n = 160 of 282) of PTs, 66.5% of IDTs, and 25% of SPTs. When confidence of drug causality was high (n = 73 of 194), testing did not correlate well with clinical suspicion: PTs, 37.6%; IDTs, 36.5%. Direct comparison of skin testing with provocation testing (n = 12) showed 83.3% correlation. Positive IDT results were reported in 8 negative PT cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Skin tests, particularly PTs and IDTs, have been reported as tools for diagnosis of causal drugs in DRESS. Heterogeneity in methodology, results analysis, and reporting of cohorts make meta-analysis to determine sensitivity and specificity of published literature impossible and highlight weaknesses in the field. We propose that international collaboration is essential to harmonize the methodology and reporting measures from hypersensitivity testing studies in larger cohorts.