Skip to main content
Acta Bio Medica : Atenei Parmensis logoLink to Acta Bio Medica : Atenei Parmensis
. 2019;90(Suppl 3):36–43. doi: 10.23750/abm.v90i3-S.8159

Mild cutaneous reactions to drugs

Crisafulli Giuseppe 1, Franceschini Fabrizio 2, Caimmi Silvia 3, Bottau Paolo 4, Liotti Lucia 5, Saretta Francesca 6, Bernardini Roberto 7, Cardinale Fabio 8, Mori Francesca 9, Caffarelli Carlo 10
PMCID: PMC6502176  PMID: 30830060

Abstract

Adverse reactions to drugs are not frequent in childhood. Cutaneous reactions are the most frequent in this age group. Mild cutaneous reactions are immediate or delayed adverse reactions that do not seriously compromise the clinical condition of children. The patients usually early improve and recover the state of health. Although it is difficult to define the prevalence accurately, we could affirm that the rate adverse reaction to drugs are often over estimated by both the families and the physicians. Therefore, children may be prone to loss of school days and inappropriate or sub-optimal treatments. However, the identification of a true adverse reaction to drugs allows adequate treatment and alert to further exposure to harmful drugs. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Keywords: drug hypersensitivity reactions, children, skin test, specific IgE, drug provocation test, exanthema, urticaria

Introduction

An adverse drug reaction (ADR) is defined by the World Health Organization as “a response to a medicine which is noxious and unintended and which occurs at doses normally used in man for the prophylaxis, diagnosis or therapy of disease, or for the modification of physiological function” (1). Cutaneous adverse drug reaction (CADR) may be defined as an undesirable manifestation of the skin resulting from administration of a drug. CADRs are reported as type of ADRs (2) in either adult population and pediatric population (1). CADRs represent about 35% of all suspected ADRs in children (3). It could be estimated that 2.5% of children who are treated with a drug, and up to 12% of children treated with an antibiotic, will experience a CADR (4). Reactions are more frequently reported following intake of antimicrobials, neurology drugs, and dermatological agents (3). CADRs can be divided into different classes based on pathogenesis and clinical morphology. On the basis of pathogenesis, they are divided into 2 categories. Type A (“augmented”) reactions are related to the pharmacologic effects of a drug and are dose dependant, predictable or expected, mild to moderate in severity. Type B (“bizarre”) reactions are not related to the pharmacologic effects of a drug, are not dose dependent (occurring with low doses of medication too), unpredictable, idiosyncratic, often severe (5, 6). Such reactions have been categorized as immunologic hypersensitivity (allergic) reactions, pseudo-allergic, and idiosyncratic (5,7). At variance from adults, type B reactions are more common in children. CADRs can also be identified on the basis of the clinical presentation. Distribution, morphology, configuration, and progression of the lesions should be adequately described. At least 29 mild to rarely severe clinical presentation of cutaneous drug reactions have been identified (8-12). We will discuss only mild cutaneous reactions in childhood (Table 1).

Table 1.

Mild cutaneous adverse drug reaction

Exanthematous Drug Eruptions
  • - Maculopapular rash (morbilliform, scarlatiniform rubelliform eruptions)

  • - Eczematoid-like pattern

  • - Psoriasiform-like pattern

  • - Lichenoid-like pattern


Urticaria
Fixed Drug Eruptions
Photosensitivity Reactions
  • - Phototoxic reactions

  • - Photoallergic reactions


Other
  • - Serum Sickness-Like Reactions

  • - Acneiform eruptions

Exanthematous Drug Eruptions

Exanthematous drug eruptions (EDEs) include maculopapular rash (morbilliform, scarlatiniform rubelliform eruptions), eczematoid/psoriasiform/ lichenoid-like pattern (based on similarity with infectious or inflammatory diseases) (13). They are the most common CADR in children (8, 14) and occur in 1-5 % of cases at first drug exposure (15).

The most common type of EDEs is maculopapular rash (MPR) that is characterized by erythematous macules evolving in papules from 1 to 5 mm in diameter and may coalesce in plaques. MPR involves face, neck, or upper trunk and tipically spreads bilaterally and symmetrically toward the limbs. MPR could be accompanied by pruritus and mild fever (16). MPR is self-limiting and resolves within 7-14 days after stopping the drug. With resolution, lesions may become brownish and desquamation may occur. EDEs are usually considered delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions, although evidence of such a mechanism is rare. There is a distinguishing timing of occurrence of lesions (17). At the first drug exposure, lesions appear after a sensitization phase, 5-14 days after the start of therapy and sometimes after drug discontinuation (8). In previously sensitized patients, skin lesions develop following re-exposure to the same drug in 6 hours to 5-7 days. The most common implicated drugs include beta-lactams, sulfonamides, and antiepileptic medications (18). EDE develops in 5% to 10% of patients treated with ampicillin. This frequency increases substantially during a viral infection. Children who are infected with the Epstein-Barr virus are at increased risk of rash (19). In EDE, patch test and provocation test should be used to identify the culprit drug (20, 21). The management of EDE is supportive. Pruritus can be treated with topical steroids, emollients, oral antihistamines. Second generation H1 blockers are associated with fewer sedative effects when compared with first generation H1 blockers (22, 23). A post-inflammatory hypopigmentation or hyperpigmentation may follow which vanishes over months or years, and sun avoidance or protection should be advised (24). The choice of suspending the offending drug must be made on individual basis. It is unclear whether continuation of a drug can lead to Steven-Johnson Syndrome (25). Topical steroids and emollients are therapeutic options in children with eczematous reactions (26).

Urticaria

Drug-induced urticaria is one of the most common drug eruption along with EDEs and represents approximately 5% of all cutaneous drug eruptions (27, 28, 29).

Urticaria is characterized by wheals due to swelling of the dermis and/or angioedema due swelling of lower dermis and subcutis or mucous membranes (30). Wheal are characterized by central swelling surrounded by an erythematous area and pruritus (rarely burning) (30). Each wheal resolves in 24 hours but new lesions may appear. Urticaria caused by drugs is usually acute, and rarely chronic (>6 weeks) (31). Acute urticaria is triggered by drugs in about 7% of children and beta-lactams followed by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most common causative drugs (32). Drug-induced urticaria is due to mediators, including histamine, and citokines released by activated mast-cells (31). Mast-cells can be degranulated by an IgE-mediated mechanism or directly by the drug (33). NSAIDs usually elicit a nonimmune mediated urticaria and should be cautiously administered in children with chronic urticaria since it may aggravate symptoms (34).

In acute urticaria, skin prick test should be used to identify the offending drug. Drug provocation test should be performed when it is appropriate (21, 30) in a setting where personnel and emergency treatment is available (35). Treatment includes discontinuation of the causative drug and administration of 2nd generation H1-antihistamines (32). If there are sleeping problems caused by pruritus, sedative antihistamines could be used at night, but do not improve control of symptoms (36). Oral corticosteroids in addition to antihistamines may be beneficial (37). The problem arises when the causative drug cannot be halted and urticaria is not controlled by reliever medications. In these cases, probiotics that are mainly used in the prevention of infectious diseases (38, 39), seem to be promising in reducing symptoms (40).

Fixed Drug Eruptions

Fixed drug eruptions (FDEs) are common in children, accounting for approximately 10-14% of cases of drug eruptions (41, 42). FDEs begin as soon as 30 minutes-8 hours after drug intake and as long as 2 months after drug exposure (8, 13). Lesions are characterized by well-demarcated, solitary or multiple papules or plaques. Their colour varies from dusky red to violet. They can be intensely pruritic (8). Lesions resolve in 7-10 days but hyperpigmentation can persist for years (24). The sites of lesions include lips, trunk, legs, arms, and genitals. Genitals are affected particularly in adolescents. Most reactions occur in multiple sites (43-48). Multiple lesions are rarely associated with systemic symptoms including malaise, high fever, nausea, and arthralgia (49-52). In previously sensitized patients, a flare develops at the same site following re-exposure (8, 53) to the offending drug within 1-8 hours (54). In the pediatric population, the most common drugs that cause FDEs are: antimicrobials (amoxicillin, teicoplanin, vancomycin, co-trimoxazole), NSAIDs (paracetamol, ibuprofen, nimesulide, naproxen, metamizol), barbiturates, sulphonamides (55).

The exact pathogenic mechanisms remain unknown. However, there is evidence that it is a CD8+ T-cell mediated reaction. The offending drug may induce local reactivation of memory CD8+T-cell lymphocytes localized in epidermal and dermal tissues and targeted initially by the viral infection and protect against the virus (53, 56). FDEs are probably underdiagnosed in primary care (57). The gold standard for diagnosis of FDEs is re-challenge, depending on the severity of the initial reaction (13). The cornerstone of the treatment is discontinuation of the causal drug that can worse the lesions (8). Management of FDE is supportive and is based on topical steroids.

Photosensitivity Reactions

Drug-induced photosensitivity refers to the development of cutaneous disease due to the interaction between a given chemical agent and sunlight (58). Exposure to either the chemical or the light alone is not enough to induce the disease. When photoactivation of the chemical occurs, one or more cutaneous manifestations may arise. In general population up to 8% of cutaneous drug eruptions are photosensitivity reactions (59), in infants and children the prevalence is quite low because of the restricted use of causal drugs. such as: hydrochlorothiazide and doxycycline. Based on their pathogenesis, they can be classified as phototoxic or photoallergic drug eruptions, although in many cases it is not possible to determine whether a particular eruption is due to a phototoxic or photoallergic mechanism (60).

Drug-induced phototoxicity occurs when photoradiation interacts with a chemical within the skin to generate free radicals, which induces host cytotoxic effects. The site of the eruption coincides with sun-exposed areas of the skin. Phototoxic reactions are non-immunologic and dose dependant and often occur soon after initial ingestion of the drug. There are 3 general variations of phototoxic reactions (61). The first is an intense and delayed erythema and edema that occurs 8 to 24 hours after exposure to sunlight. This reaction can involve hyperpigmentation and be a darker red than sunburn. Hydrochlorothiazide is an example of a trigger for this first type of phototoxic reaction. A second, more-immediate variation can occur within 30 minutes after light exposure and can last for a day or two. In this variant, erythema occurs without edema and is accompanied by local burning and pruritis. This more-immediate variation is often associated with doxycycline and the coal-tar derivatives such as anthracene and acridine. The third variant is associated with porphyrins and manifests as a rapid, transient, urticarial-like eruption that can be activated by room lighting.

In contrast, photoallergic reactions occur after a period of sensitization and can reoccur with small doses of the offending drugs. The reactions may appear with papulovesicular eruption, pruritis, and eczematous dermatitis 1 to 14 days after exposure to sunlight. Photoallergic reactions should be differentiated from lupus, solar urticaria (61-65).

Phototesting and photopatch testing can be useful for achieving the diagnosis. The mainstay of management is prevention, including informing patients of the possibility of increased sun sensitivity and the use of sun protective measures. Moisturizes and emollients can be useful to treat the burning. In severe cases, topical antibiotic can be considered for vesicles and blisters. Oral antihistamines and topical corticosteroids can provide symptomatic relief of skin lesions due to photoallergic reactions (13, 61).

Other forms

Serum Sickness-Like Reactions (SSLRs) are characterized by fever, pruritis, urticaria, and arthralgias (13). Lymphadenopathy and eosinophilia may be present. Unlike the “true serum sickness reaction”, SSLRs do not exhibit immune complexes, hypocomplementemia, vasculitis, or renal lesions (25). They have claimed mostly associated with cefaclor therapy. The development of bacterial resistance to cefaclor has limited its utility in the treatment of pediatric infections (66). For this reason, SSLRs might be less common now than in the past. Cross-reaction of cefaclor with other beta-lactam antibiotics is rare and, in general, other cephalosporins are well tolerated (67). However, some physicians recommend that all beta-lactam antibiotics should be avoided in patients who have experienced cefaclor induced SSLR (68).

Other drugs that have been implicated include biological agents (efalizumab, omalizumab, rituximab, infliximab) (69-73), antibiotics (meropenem, minocycline, ciprofloxacin, rifampicin) (73-79), antimycotics (griseofulvin, itraconazole) (80, 81) and other agents such as bupropion (82), clopidogrel (83), fluoxetine (84), insulin detemir (85), immunoglobulin (86), mesalamine (87), or streptokinase (88).

SSLRs usually occur 1-3 weeks after drug exposure and resolve soon after drug discontinuation (25). The suspected drugs should be avoided by patients who had SSLRs. The underlying cause of SSLRs remains unknown. Therefore, treatment is symptomatic, consisting in identification and discontinuation of the offending drug. Antihistamines are prescribed in case of urticaria and NSAIDs in case of persistent arthralgia and/or arthritis. It is unclear whether a short course of systemic glucocorticoids improves SSLRs (89).

Acneiform eruptions are pustular induced eruptions by drugs that often affects the arms and legs at variance from acne vulgaris. The lesions are usually monomorphous and heal without scarring. They occur with iodides, bromides, adrenocorticotropic hormone, corticosteroids, isoniazid, androgens, lithium, actinomycin D, and phenytoin. Topical medications that are oil-based could be the cause of a type of acne known as pomade acne. Sometimes corticosteroids worsening testosterone-induced acne within 2 weeks by the beginning of treatment. The risk appears to be directly proportional to the dose and duration of the therapy and severity of pre-existent acne (90). Treatments is the same as acne vulgaris and include topical benzoyl peroxide, topical antibiotics, and topical tretinoin (25).

Conclusions

CADRs are a frequent reason of primary care visit (91). In childhood there is a misattribution of cutaneous drug reactions. Diagnosis could be difficult because CADRs can closely mimic other diseases (e.g., viral infections); the identification of the causative drug can become complex especially in the patient on treatment with more than one drug.

CADRs are confirmed with a drug challenge in a very low number of cases (92, 93). Furthermore, the anxiety of parents could mislead the clinician to consider the child “allergic” to a drug (7). In the case of a true allergy the drug involved should be avoided. On the other hand, an incorrect diagnosis can limit therapeutic options and increase the risk of using more toxic, less effective and more expensive drugs (94). A detailed history is necessary in order to evaluate the real occurrence of the adverse reaction. Therefore, good management of suspected CADRs requires an efficient method of estimating the probability of the drug reaction. Causality assessments based on clinical history, such as the Naranjo assessment (94), have proven to be a valid method of estimating the probability of ADR (18, 95-100) but provocation test is the gold standard in the diagnosis of ADR (21).

Conflict of interest:

None to declare

References

  • 1.Segal AR, Doherty KM, Leggott J, Zlotoff B. Cutaneous reactions to drugs in children. Pediatrics. 2007;120:e1082–96. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-2321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rallis E, Balatsouras DG, Kouskoukis C, et al. Drug eruptions in children with ENT infections. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2006;70:53–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2005.05.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Star K, Noren GN, Nordin K, Edwards IR. Suspected adverse drug reactions reported for children worldwide: an exploratory study using VigiBase. Drug Saf. 2011;34:415–28. doi: 10.2165/11587540-000000000-00000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Dhar S, Banerjee R, Malakar R. Cutaneous drug reactions in children. Indian J Paediatr Dermatol. 2014;15:5–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Assem EK. Drug allergy and tests for its detection. Davies’s Textbook of Adverse Drug Reactions. In: Davies DM, Ferner RE, de Glanville H, editors. 5th ed. London, United Kingdom: Chapman & Hall Medical; 1998. pp. 791–815. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Coombs R, Gell PGH. Classification of allergic reactions responsible for clinical Hypersensitivity and disease. Clinical Aspects of Immunology. In: Coombs R, Gell PGH, Lachman PJ, editors. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Scientific; 1975. pp. 761–781. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gruchalla R. Understanding drug allergies. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000;105:S637–S644. doi: 10.1067/mai.2000.106156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Litt J. New York, NY: Parthenon; 2000. Drug Eruption Reference Manual. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kushwaha KP, Verma RB, Singh YD, Rathi AK. Surveillance of drug induced diseases in children. Indian J Pediatr. 1994;61:357–365. doi: 10.1007/BF02751889. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ibia EO, Schwartz RH, Wiedermann BL. Antibiotic rashes in children: survey in a private practice setting. Arch Dermatol. 2000;136:849–854. doi: 10.1001/archderm.136.7.849. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Van der Linden PD, van der Lei J, Vlug AE, Stricker BH. Skin reactions to antibacterial agents in general practice. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:703–708. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00041-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Cirko-Begović A, Vrhovac B, Bakran I. Intensive monitoring of adverse drug reactions in infants and preschool children. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1989;36:63–65. doi: 10.1007/BF00561025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Shin HT, Chang MW. Drug eruptions in children. Curr Probl Pediatr. 2001;31:207–234. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bigby M, Jick S, Jick H, Arndt K. Drug-induced cutaneous reactions. A report from the Boston Collaborative Drug Cutaneous Drug Reactions in Children 501 Surveillance Program on 15,438 consecutive in patients, 1975 to 1982. JAMA. 1986;256:3358–63. doi: 10.1001/jama.256.24.3358. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Stern RS. Clinical practice: exanthematous drug eruptions. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2492–501. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp1104080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lookingbill DP, Marks JG Jr. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 2000. Principles of Dermatology. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bircher AJ, Scherer K. Delayed cutaneous manifestations of drug hypersensitivity. Med Clin North Am. 2010;94:711–725. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2010.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Roujeau JC. Clinical heterogeneity of drug hypersensitivity. Toxicology. 2005;209:123–9. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2004.12.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Chew C, Goenka A. QUESTION 2: Does amoxicillin exposure increase the risk of rash in children with acute Epstein-Barr virus infection. Arch Dis Child. 2016;101:500–2. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2015-310364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Caglayan Sozmen S, Povesi Dascola C, Gioia E, Mastrorilli C, Rizzuti L, Caffarelli C. Diagnostic accuracy of patch test in children with food allergy. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2015;26:416–22. doi: 10.1111/pai.12377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Caffarelli C, Franceschini F, Caimmi D, et al. SIAIP position paper: provocation challenge to antibiotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in children. Ital J Pediatr. 2018;44:147. doi: 10.1186/s13052-018-0589-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Horowitz R, Reynolds S. New oral antihistamines in pediatrics. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2004;20:143–146. doi: 10.1097/01.pec.0000113886.10140.9e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Simons FE. H1-antihistamines in children. Clin Allergy Immunol. 2002;17:437–464. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Alissa R, Segal , Kevin M. Doherty, John Leggott, Barrett Zlotoff. Cutaneous Reactions to Drugs in Children. Pediatrics. 2007;120:e 1082. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-2321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kara Heelan , Neil H Shear. Cutaneous Drug Reactions in Children: An Update. Pediatr Drugs. 2013;15:493–503. doi: 10.1007/s40272-013-0039-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Galli E, Neri I, Ricci G, et al. Consensus Conference on Clinical Management of pediatric Atopic Dermatitis. Ital J Pediatr. 2016;42:26. doi: 10.1186/s13052-016-0229-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bigby M. Rates of cutaneous reactions to drugs. Arch Dermatol. 2001;137:765–70. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Nettis E, Marcandrea M, Di Maggio G, Tursi A. Retrospective analysis of drug-induced urticaria and angioedema: a survey of 2287 patients. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol. 2001;23:585–595. doi: 10.1081/iph-100108604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ardern-Jones MR, Friedmann PS. Skin manifestations of drug allergy. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;71:672–683. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2010.03703.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Zuberbier T, Aberer W, Asero R, et al. The EAACI/GA2LEN/EDF/WAO guideline for the definition, classification, diagnosis and management of urticaria. Allergy. 2018;73:1393–1414. doi: 10.1111/all.13397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Caffarelli C, Cuomo B, Cardinale F, et al. Aetiological factors associated with chronic urticaria in children: a systematic review. Acta Derm Venereol. 2013;93:268–72. doi: 10.2340/00015555-1511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sánchez-Borgesa M, Capriles-Hulettb A, Caballero-Fonseca F. Demographic and clinical profiles in patients with acute urticaria. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr) 2015;43:409–15. doi: 10.1016/j.aller.2014.04.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Caffarelli C, Dondi A, Povesi Dascola C, Ricci G. Skin prick test to foods in childhood atopic eczema: pros and cons. Ital J Pediatr. 2013;31:39–48. doi: 10.1186/1824-7288-39-48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kowalski ML, Woessner K, Sanak M. Approaches to the diagnosis and management of patients with a history of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug-related urticaria and angioedema. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;136:245–251. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2015.06.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Caffarelli C, Ricò S, Rinaldi L, Povesi Dascola C, Terzi C, Bernasconi S. Blood pressure monitoring in children undergoing food challenge: association with anaphylaxis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2012;108:285–6. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2012.02.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Staevska M, Gugutkova M, Lazarova C, et al. Night-time sedating H1-antihistamine increases daytime somnolence but not treatment efficacy in chronic spontaneous urticaria: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Derm. 2014;171:148–54. doi: 10.1111/bjd.12846. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Poon M, Reid C. Do steroids help children with acute urticaria? Arch Dis Child. 2004;89:85–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Caffarelli C, Cardinale F, Povesi-Dascola C, Dodi I, Mastrorilli V, Ricci G. Use of probiotics in pediatric infectious diseases. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2015;13:1517–35. doi: 10.1586/14787210.2015.1096775. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Caffarelli C, Bernasconi S. Preventing necrotising enterocolitis with probiotics. Lancet. 2007;369:1578–1580. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60721-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Nettis E, Di Leo E, Pastore A, Distaso M, Zaza I, Vacca M, Macchia L, Vacca A. Probiotics and refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;48:182–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Khaled A, Kharfi M, Ben Hamida M, et al. Cutaneous adverse drug reactions in children: a series of 90 cases. Tunis Med. 2012;90:45–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sharma VK, Dhar S. Clinical pattern of cutaneous drug eruption among children and adolescents in north India. Pediatr Dermatol. 1995;12:178–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1470.1995.tb00149.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Lee AY. Topical provocation in 31 cases of fixed drug eruption: change of causative drugs in 10 years. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;38:258–260. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1998.tb05739.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ozkaya-Bayazit E. Specific site involvement in fixed drug eruption. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;49:1003–1007. doi: 10.1016/s0190-9622(03)01588-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Sharma VK, Dhar S, Gill AN. Drug related involvement of specific sites in fixed eruptions: a statistical evaluation. J Dermatol. 1996;23:530–534. doi: 10.1111/j.1346-8138.1996.tb02646.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Thankappan TP, Zachariah J. Drug-specific clinical pattern in fixed drug eruptions. Int J Dermatol. 1991;30:867–870. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-4362.1991.tb04354.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Nussinovitch M, Prais D, Ben-Amitai D, Amir J, Volovitz B. Fixed drug eruption in the genital area in 15 boys. Pediatr Dermatol. 2002;19:216–219. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1470.2002.00078.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Brown SG. Fixed drug eruptions in deeply pigmented subjects: clinical observations on 350 patients. Br Med J. 1964;2:1041–1044. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.5416.1041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Shiohara T. Fixed drug eruption: pathogenesis and diagnostic tests. Curr. Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;9:316–321. doi: 10.1097/ACI.0b013e32832cda4c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Mizukawa Y, Yamazaki Y, Teraki Y, et al. Direct evidence for interferon-gamma production by effector-memory-type intra-epidermal T cells residing at an effector site of immunopathology in fixed drug eruption. Am J Pathol. 2002;161:1337–1347. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9440(10)64410-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Mizukawa Y, Shiohara T. Nonpigmenting fixed drug eruption as a possible abortive variant of toxic epidermal necrolysis: immune-histochemical and serum cytokine analyses. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2010;35:493–497. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2230.2009.03622.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Mizukawa Y, Yamazaki Y, Shiohara T. In vivo dynamics of intraepidermal CD8+ Tcells and CD4+ Tcells during the evolution of fixed drug eruption. Br J Dermatol. 2008;158:1230–1238. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.08516.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Mahboob A, Haroon TS. Drugs causing fixed eruptions: a study of 450 cases. Int J Dermatol. 1998;37:833–838. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-4362.1998.00451.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Ozkaya E. Fixed drug eruption: state of the art. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2008;6:181–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1610-0387.2007.06491.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Ott H. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 2011. Hypersensitivity reactions to drugs. Harper’s textbook of pediatric dermatology; pp. 183.1–183.14. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Shiohara T, Ushigome Y, Kano Y, Takahashi R. Crucial role of viral reactivation in the development of severe drug eruptions: a comprehensive review. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2015;49:192–202. doi: 10.1007/s12016-014-8421-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Morelli JG, Tay YK, Rogers M, Halbert A, Krafchik B, Weston WL. Fixed drug eruptions in children. J Pediatr. 1999;134:365–367. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(99)70472-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Monteiro AF, Rato M, Martins C. Drug-induced photosensitivity: Photoallergic and phototoxic reactions. Clin Dermatol. 2016;34:571–81. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2016.05.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Selvaag E. Clinical drug photosensitivity: a retrospective analysis of reports to the Norwegian Adverse Drug Reactions Committee from the years 1970-1994. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 1997;13:21–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0781.1997.tb00103.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Drucker AM, Rosen CF, Drug Saf. Drug-induced photosensitivity: culprit drugs, management and prevention. 2011;34:821–37. doi: 10.2165/11592780-000000000-00000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Moore DE. Drug-induced cutaneous photosensitivity: incidence, mechanism, prevention and management. Drug Saf. 2002;25:345–372. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200225050-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Allen JE, Potter TS, Hashimoto K. Drugs that cause photosensitivity. Med Lett Drugs Ther. 1995;37:35–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Ernst E, Rand JI, Barnes J, Stevinson C. Adverse effects profile of the herbal antidepressant St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum L.) Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;54:589–594. doi: 10.1007/s002280050519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Harth Y, Rapoport M. Photosensitivity associated with antipsychotics, antidepressants and anxiolytics. Drug Saf. 1996;14:252–259. doi: 10.2165/00002018-199614040-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Vassileva SG, Mateev G, Parish LC. Antimicrobial photosensitive reactions. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:1993–2000. doi: 10.1001/archinte.158.18.1993. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Rosenfeld RM, Culpepper L, Doyle KJ, et al. Clinical practice guideline: otitis media with effusion. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(5):S95–S118. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2004.02.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Vial T, Pont J, Pham E, Rabilloud M, Descotes J. Cefaclora-ssociated serum sickness-like disease: eight cases and review of the literature. Ann Pharmacother. 1992;26:910–4. doi: 10.1177/106002809202600708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Grammer LC. Cefaclor serum sickness. JAMA. 1996;275:1152–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Ashraf-Benson S, Wall GC, Veach LA. Serum sickness-like reaction associated with efalizumab. Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43:383–6. doi: 10.1345/aph.1L495. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Dreyfus DH, Randolph CC. Characterization of an anaphylactoid reaction to omalizumab. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2006;96:624–7. doi: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)63560-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Finger E, Scheinberg M. Development of serum sickness-like symptoms after rituximab infusion in two patients with severe hyper-gamma-globulinemia. J Clin Rheumatol. 2007;13:94–5. doi: 10.1097/01.rhu.0000262585.18582.1e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Gamarra RM, McGraw SD, Drelichman VS, Maas LC. Serum sickness-like reactions in patients receiving intravenous infliximab. J Emerg Med. 2006;30:41–4. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2005.01.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Grosen A, Julsgaard M, Christensen LA. Serum sickness-like reaction due to Infliximab reintroduction during pregnancy. J Crohns Colitis. 2013;7:e191. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2012.10.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Sarma N, Malakar S, Lahiri K, Banerjee U. Serum sickness like reaction with minocycline. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2004;70:43–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Katta R, Anusuri V. Serum sickness-like reaction to cefuroxime: a case report and review of the literature. J Drugs Dermatol. 2007;6:747–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Parra FM, Perez Elias MJ, Cuevas M, Ferreira A. Serum sickness-like illness associated with rifampicin. Ann Allergy. 1994;73:123–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Slama TG. Serum sickness-like illness associated with ciprofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990;34:904–5. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.5.904. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Ralph ED, John M, Rieder MJ, Bombassaro AM. Serum sicknesslike reaction possibly associated with meropenem use. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36:e149–51. doi: 10.1086/374932. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Brucculeri M, Charlton M, Serur D. Serum sickness-like reaction associated with cefazolin. BMC Clin Pharmacol. 2006;6:3. doi: 10.1186/1472-6904-6-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Colton RL, Amir J, Mimouni M, Zeharia A. Serum sickness-like reaction associated with griseofulvin. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38:609–11. doi: 10.1345/aph.1D291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Park H, Knowles S, Shear NH. Serum sickness-like reaction to itraconazole. Ann Pharmacother. 1998;32:1249. doi: 10.1345/aph.17432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Waibel KH, Katial RK. Serum sickness-like reaction and bupropion. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2004;43:509. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200405000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Phillips EJ, Knowles SR, Shear NH. Serum sickness-like reaction associated with clopidogrel. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2003;56:583. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2125.2003.01918.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Shapiro LE, Knowles SR, Shear NH. Fluoxetine-induced serum sickness-like reaction. Ann Pharmacother. 1997;31:927. doi: 10.1177/106002809703100723. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Aujero MP, Brooks S, Li N, Venna S. Severe serum sickness-like type III reaction to insulin detemir. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;64:e127–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2010.11.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Azik FM, Kanmaz G, Ileri T. Serum sickness-like syndrome after immunoglobulin M-enriched polyclonal immunoglobulin. Drug Metabol Drug Interact. 2010;25:49–50. doi: 10.1515/DMDI.2010.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Harris A, Eswaran S, Bosworth B, Gambarin-Gelwan M, Scherl EJ. Mesalamine-induced pneumonitis and serum sickness-like reaction. Gastroenterol Hepatol (NY) 2007;3:875–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Lee HS, Yule S, McKenzie A, et al. Hypersensitivity reactions to streptokinase in patients with high pre-treatment antistreptokinase antibody and neutralisation titres. Eur Heart J. 1993;14:1640–3. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/14.12.1640. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Joubert GI, Hadad K, Matsui D, Gloor J, Rieder MJ. Selection of treatment of cefaclor-associated urticarial, serum sickness-like reactions and erythema multiforme by emergency pediatricians: lack of a uniform standard of care. Can J Clin Pharmacol. 1999;6:197–201. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Hurwitz RM. Steroid acne. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;21:1179–81. doi: 10.1016/s0190-9622(89)70325-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Johnson ML, Johnson KG, Engel A. Prevalence, morbidity, and cost of dermatologic diseases. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1984;11:930–936. doi: 10.1016/s0190-9622(84)80017-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Huang SW, Borum PR. Study of skin rashes after antibiotic use in young children. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 1998;37:601–607. doi: 10.1177/000992289803701002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Martin-Munoz F, Moreno-Ancillo A, Dominguez-Noche C, et al. Evaluation of drug-related hypersensitivity reactions in children. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 1999;9:172–177. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Preston SL, Briceland LL, Lesai TS. Accuracy of penicillin allergy reporting. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1994;51:79–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, et al. A method of estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981;30:239–244. doi: 10.1038/clpt.1981.154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Karch FE, Lasagna L. Toward the operational identification of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1977;21:247–254. doi: 10.1002/cpt1977213247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Council for International Organization of Medical Sciences. Harmonizing use of adverse drug reaction terms: definitions of terms and minimum requirements for their use—respiratory disorders and skin disorders [published correction appears in Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1997; 6:293. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 1997;6:115–127. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1557(199703)6:2<115::AID-PDS252>3.0.CO;2-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Roujeau JC, Stern R. Medical progress: severe cutaneous reactions to drugs. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1272–1285. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199411103311906. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Kramer MS, Leventhal JM, Hutchinson TA, Feinstein AR. An algorithm for the operational assessment of adverse drug reactions: I. Background, description, and instructions for use. JAMA. 1979;242:623–632. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Hutchinson TA, Leventhal JM, Kramer MS, Karch FE, Lipman AG, Feinstein AR. An algorithm for the operational assessment of adverse drug reactions: II. demonstration of reproducibility and validity. JAMA. 1979;242:633–638. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Acta Bio Medica : Atenei Parmensis are provided here courtesy of Mattioli 1885

RESOURCES