RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Methods for identifying culprit drugs in cutaneous drug eruptions: A scoping review
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.05.11.21257038
DO 10.1101/2021.05.11.21257038
A1 Bose, Reetesh
A1 Ogbalidet, Selam
A1 Boshra, Mina
A1 Finstad, Alexandra
A1 Marzario, Barbara
A1 Huang, Christina
A1 Fahim, Simone
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/14/2021.05.11.21257038.abstract
AB 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 StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo funding was required for this study.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe 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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesSources of evidence: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.ADEAdverse drug eventAGEPAcute generalized exanthematous pustulosisCAMCausality assessment methodCDECutaneous drug eruptionCDICulprit drug identificationDIHSDrug induced hypersensitivity syndromeDRESSDrug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic signsEMErythema multiformeFDEFixed drug eruptionHHV6 & 7Human herpes virus 6 & 7HRTHistamine release assayLTTLymphocyte transformation testNPVNegative predictive valuePPVPositive predictive valueSJSStevens Jonson syndromeSNSensitivitySPSpecificityTENToxic epidermal necrolysis