Search

Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome/drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DIHS/DRESS) is one example of a severe delayed T-cell-mediated adverse drug reaction. DIHS/DRESS presents with fever, widespread rash and facial edema, organ involvement, and hematological abnormalities, including eosinophilia and atypical lymphocytosis. DIHS/DRESS is associated with relapse 2 to 4 weeks after acute symptoms, often coinciding with reactivation of prevalent chronic persistent human herpesviruses such as human herpesvirus 6, EBV, and cytomegalovirus. The mortality of DIHS/DRESS is up to 10% and often related to unrecognized myocarditis and cytomegalovirus complications, with longer-term consequences that contribute to morbidity including autoimmune diseases such as thyroiditis. It is essential that all potential drug causes, including all new drugs introduced within the 8 weeks preceding onset of DIHS/DRESS symptoms, are identified. All potential drug culprits, as well as drugs that are closely related structurally to the culprit drug, should be avoided in the future. Systemic corticosteroids have remained the mainstay for the treatment of DIHS/DRESS with internal organ involvement. Steroid-sparing agents, such as cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and monthly intravenous immune globulin, have been successfully used for treatment, and careful follow-up for cytomegalovirus reactivation is recommended. Strong associations between HLA class I alleles and DIHS/DRESS predisposition include HLA-B∗13:01 and dapsone, HLA-B∗58:01 and allopurinol, and HLA-B∗32:01 and vancomycin. These have opened a pathway for prevention, risk stratification, and earlier diagnosis. Single-cell sequencing and other studies of immunopathogenesis promise to identify targeted treatment approaches., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The clinical classification of cutaneous adverse reactions by drugs should be clearly distinguished to avoid conceptual confusion and inconsistency. Although dermatologists appear to have established a roughly common consensus for cutaneous adverse reactions, some types are more rigorously defined than other, possibly misleading classifications. To assess the consensus on the clinical classifications, we investigated the concordance rate of diagnosis by Japanese experts through a snap visual inspection of various clinical pictures exhibiting erythema multiforme and maculopapular eruption types of cutaneous adverse reactions. The experts were shown images on a screen and were then asked to decide whether to classify cases as maculopapular eruption or erythema multiforme type, and the concordance rates were calculated. Overall, the mean concordance rate was 71.6% (standard deviation, 17.3%), and only 33.8% of cases had a 90% or more concordance rate. Our study shows that the determinations of erythema multiforme and maculopapular eruption types by the existing classification criteria were confusing even among experts, which prompted us to standardize the terminology. We propose clinically defining erythema multiforme type as generalized macules mainly of 1 cm or more with a tendency of elevation and coalescence, and maculopapular eruption type as generalized erythema other than erythema multiforme type. Currently, the clinical definitions of cutaneous adverse reactions are poorly described, which may be problematic upon analyzing large volumes of data. Our proposal for a new terminology will enhance the accuracy and consistency of information for the correct analysis of cutaneous adverse reactions., (© 2019 Japanese Dermatological Association.)