Nested case‐control study investigating the diagnostic role of tissue eosinophilia in adverse cutaneous drug reactions

Abstract

Background

Although tissue‐eosinophilia has traditionally been considered diagnostically supportive of adverse cutaneous drug reactions (ACDRs), studies have suggested it is neither a sensitive nor a specific finding in drug eruptions (DEs).

Objectives

Determining whether skin‐tissue eosinophilia is a reliable indicator of ACDR.

Methods

A nested case‐control retrospective study conducted in a cohort of 170 patients at a single institution. Tissue eosinophilia (number of eosinophils per High Power Field (HPF)) was investigated in skin biopsies obtained from the following groups of patients who demonstrated: a)in vitro assay and telephone interview‐validated cutaneous drug reactions (True DE); b)initial clinical diagnosis of ACDR but drug etiology was excluded by in vitro assay and telephone interview (False DE); c)non drug‐associated cutaneous eruptions, skin tumors and nevi, randomly selected for evaluation (control).

Results

Significantly higher number of eosinophils per HPF was observed in the False DE compared to the True DE group (p=0.02). The False DE group demonstrated a higher number of eosinophils (p<0.001) while the True DE group eosinophils' number was not significantly higher as compared to control (p=0.2032).

Conclusions

Tissue eosinophilia is not a reliable indicator of ACDRs.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

http://bit.ly/2S3FCNn