ABSTRACT
Background Cutaneous drug eruptions are a significant source of morbidity, mortality, and cost to the healthcare system. Identifying the culprit drug is essential; however, despite numerous methods being published, there are no consensus guidelines.
Objectives Conduct a scoping review to identify all published methods of culprit drug identification for cutaneous drug eruptions, compare the methods, and generate hypotheses for future causality assessment studies.
Eligibility criteria Peer-reviewed publications involving culprit drug identification methods.
Sources of evidence Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.
Charting methods Registered PRISMA-ScR format protocol on Open Science Forum.
Results In total, 135 publications were included comprising 656,635 adverse drug events, most of which were cutaneous. There were 54 methods of culprit drug identification published, categorized as algorithms, probabilistic approaches, and expert judgment.
Algorithms had higher sensitivity and positive predictive value, but lower specificity and negative predictive value. Probabilistic approaches had lower sensitivity and positive predictive value, but higher specificity and negative predictive value. Expert judgment was subjective, less reproducible, but the most frequently used to validate other methods. Studies suggest that greater accuracy may be achieved by specifically assessing cutaneous drug eruptions and using combinations of causality assessment categories.
Conclusions Culprit drug identification for adverse drug reactions remains a challenge. Many methods have been published, but there are no consensus guidelines. Using causality assessment methods specifically for cutaneous drug eruptions and combining aspects of the different causality assessment categories may improve efficacy. Further studies are needed to validate this hypothesis.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funding was required for this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Exempt from review.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding statement: This article has no funding source.
Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
IRB status: Exempt from review
Data Availability
Sources of evidence: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
- ADE
- Adverse drug event
- AGEP
- Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis
- CAM
- Causality assessment method
- CDE
- Cutaneous drug eruption
- CDI
- Culprit drug identification
- DIHS
- Drug induced hypersensitivity syndrome
- DRESS
- Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic signs
- EM
- Erythema multiforme
- FDE
- Fixed drug eruption
- HHV6 & 7
- Human herpes virus 6 & 7
- HRT
- Histamine release assay
- LTT
- Lymphocyte transformation test
- NPV
- Negative predictive value
- PPV
- Positive predictive value
- SJS
- Stevens Jonson syndrome
- SN
- Sensitivity
- SP
- Specificity
- TEN
- Toxic epidermal necrolysis