Drug reexposure in children with severe mucocutaneous reactions

In pediatric patients, severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) frequently occur in the course of acute illnesses, mostly infections, which are usually treated with antibiotics or analgesics. The drug provocation test (DPT) is contraindicated in such situations, due to the risk of triggering a new severe reaction. As a consequence, lifelong avoidance is recommended. However, causation is uncertain in most cases. The dilemma arises when avoiding the drug is not harmless for the patient. We have attended three patients who were referred to our pediatric allergy unit with a history of SCAR related in time to simultaneous use of paracetamol and ibuprofen. Medical records and images of the patients were reviewed with the assistance of a dermatologist, and alternative diagnoses were considered in both cases. The ALDEN score for implicated drugs was calculated. After considering a high probability of ibuprofen tolerance and obtaining informed consent from the patients, we performed a sequential allergy workup including in vitro tests, skin tests, and finally DPT in two of the patients, confirming ibuprofen tolerance. In conclusion, although generally contraindicated, DPT may be considered for some useful drugs after careful evaluation of the risk–benefit balance, preceded by a sequential study including in vitro and skin tests.

The association between HLA-B*15:02 and phenytoin-induced severe cutaneous adverse reactions: a meta-analysis

Aim: Phenytoin (PHT) is a common anticonvulsant agent known for inducing severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs). HLA-B*15:02 as a risk factor of PHT-induced SCARs was reported in numerous studies with inconsistent results. This meta-analysis aimed to establish pooling evidence of this association. Materials & methods: Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were estimated using a random-effects model. Results: A total of 11 studies on 1389 patients, were included for the analyses. There was a significant association between HLA-B*15:02 and PHT-induced SCAR (pooled OR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.25–4.19, p = 0.008). Furthermore, there was a significant association regarding Stevens–Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (OR = 3.63, 95% CI: 2.15–6.13, p < 0.001) but no association regarding drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptom. Conclusion: The results supported the recommendations of HLA-B*15:02 screening before treatment with PHT.

Cutaneous Adverse Reactions Associated with SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines

Many patients are receiving SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, which have been associated with a variety of adverse effects. Cutaneous adverse reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations have been progressively reported, but they have not been reviewed according to their morphological clinical patterns. The objective of this review was to summarize the existing data concerning the cutaneous adverse reactions following SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and group them according to common morphological and pathogenetic patterns. We reviewed the English language literature up to August 15th, 2021, using predefined keywords to identify the relevant studies evaluating cutaneous adverse reactions associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We search for recurrent morphological patterns sharing clinical signs and symptoms and physio-pathological mechanisms. Timing to onset following the first or booster dose of the vaccine, predisposing conditions, therapeutic management, and outcome were also collected. Among the dermatological manifestations associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, we distinguished: (1) new onset reactions and (2) flares of preexisting dermatoses. The most common were injection site reactions, affecting 30–70% and generally mild or moderate. Small case series or single case reports included filler reactions, exanthemas, vascular lesions, urticaria, eczematous dermatitis, autoimmune bullous reactions, and severe cutaneous adverse reactions. In addition, the exacerbation of chronic immuno-mediated dermatoses (mainly psoriasis and atopic dermatitis) and reactivations of herpes infection were reported. The cutaneous reactions were generally mild, self-limiting, and resembled common cutaneous drug eruptions and/or COVID-19 skin manifestations.

Critical Review of Gaps in the Diagnosis and Management of Drug-Induced Liver Injury Associated with Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) encompasses the unexpected damage that drugs can cause to the liver. DILI may develop in the context of an immunoallergic syndrome with cutaneous manifestations, which are sometimes severe (SCARs). Nevirapine, allopurinol, anti-epileptics, sulfonamides, and antibiotics are the most frequent culprit drugs for DILI associated with SCARs. Interestingly, alleles HLA-B*58:01 and HLA-A*31:01 are associated with both adverse reactions. However, there is no consensus about the criteria used for the characterization of liver injury in this context, and the different thresholds for DILI definition make it difficult to gain insight into this complex disorder. Moreover, current limitations when evaluating causality in patients with DILI associated with SCARs are related to the plethora of causality assessment methods and the lack of consensual complementary tools. Finally, the management of this condition encompasses the treatment of liver and skin injury. Although the use of immunomodulant agents is accepted for SCARs, their role in treating liver injury remains controversial. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to test their efficacy and safety to address this complex entity. Therefore, this review aims to identify the current gaps in the definition, diagnosis, prognosis, and management of DILI associated with SCARs, proposing different strategies to fill in these gaps.

CTNI-52. RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF USING RADIOTHERAPY WITH CONCURRENT TEMOZOLOMIDE AND TUMOR TREATING FIELDS FOR CHINESE PATIENTS WITH NEWLY DIAGNOSED GLIOBLASTOMA

OBJECTIVES Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) has been shown to improve the overall survival of newly diagnosed GBM (ndGBM) when combined with Temozolomide (TMZ) in the EF-14 trial. Preclinical studies suggested synergistic effects between TTFields and radiotherapy. This study is aimed to examine the safety and efficacy of combination therapy (chemoradiation concurrent with TTFields treatment) for ndGBM patients in China. METHODS From July 2020 to May 2021, 33 ndGBM patients were treated with combination therapy (radiation target volume following NCCN guidelines). Eight patients had transducer array removed during radiotherapy, others retained transducer array on scalp. All patients had assessment every two months by MRI scan. The adverse reactions and monthly compliance data for TTFields treatment were recorded. RESULTS Twenty-five patients have completed the combination therapy. Three patients retained transducer array during radiotherapy but did not limit the scalp dose (mean: 21.7Gy). As a result, Grade 2 cutaneous adverse reactions developed, and TTFields treatment was suspended. Four patients suspended TTFields treatment due to other adverse reactions. The remaining patients who had limited scalp doses (mean &lt; 20Gy) had no suspension or delay in combination therapy due to cutaneous adverse reactions. The median time of TTFields treatment during radiotherapy is 21.24 hours/day (IQR:19.26,22.08). Two patients had progressive disease, 1 died of pulmonary infection, and 30 had stable disease. The incidence of cutaneous AE was 48.5% (16/33), Grade1: 27.2% (9/33), Grade 2: 21.2% (7/33), and Grade 3: 3% (1/33). CONCLUSIONS The combination therapy was well tolerated in Chinese patients with ndGBM. Removing transducer array during radiotherapy may increase the frequency of array replacement while reducing the patient's daily treatment time. However, retaining transducer array will increase cutaneous adverse reactions. Scalp dose limitation is required yet it allows a maximum duration of TTFields. Further follow-ups are ongoing.

Review of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Radiotherapy Related Skin Toxicities

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer therapy, and their use in combination with radiation therapy (RT) has become increasingly utilized to optimize positive outcomes. The cutaneous adverse reactions from RT as well as ICIs are both well documented; however, in combination these cutaneous toxicities can be exacerbated. ICIs and RT may work synergistically to create an enhanced immune response against the tumor cells. This synergistic effect has been reported to occur both locally at the site of RT, as well as systemically via an abscopal effect. Fortunately, this combination of treatment does not increase the incidence of cutaneous reactions, although several cases have reported enhanced skin toxicity at the site of RT. RT is thought to create an ‘immunocompromised skin district’ or localized immune dysregulation in irradiated skin. This review summarizes previously published case reports and discusses the cutaneous adverse reactions from ICI and RT combination therapy. Properly identifying ICI and RT induced skin reactions depends on several factors including patient history, sequence of therapies, timing of reaction, and histological findings. Skin reactions from combination therapy can range in severity and include ICI-induced radiation recall dermatitis, as well as uncommon presentations of Stevens-Johnson syndrome, lichen planus, and bullous pemphigoid which are localized to or enhanced within areas of prior radiation exposure. It is important for oncologists and dermatologists alike to be aware of the spectrum of reactions associated with ICI and RT.