Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ALLERGY
ISSN 0105-4538
Position paper
854
A drug provocation test (DPT) is the controlled administration of a drug in order to diagnose drug hypersensitivity reactions. DPTs are performed under medical
surveillance, whether this drug is an alternative compound, or structurally/pharmacologically related, or the
suspected drug itself. DPT is sometimes termed controlled challenge or reexposure (1), drug challenge (2),
graded (2) or incremental challenge (3), test dosing (2),
855
Aberer et al.
Contraindications for DPT
Test methods
Route of administration
856
Route
Immediate reaction
oral, intravenous
oral, intravenous
topical
oral, intravenous
oral, intravenous
oral, intravenous
oral
topical (eye)
oral
+
+
Non-immediate reaction
?**
+
+
+
Free interval
5 days
5 days
?**
3 weeks
1 week
3 days
1 day
1 day
* withdrawal may not be possible; ** probably irrelevant in most instances; *** controversial discussion, see text.
reaction under investigation should have resolved completely, clinically and according to lab results if
measured initially and being abnormal. Any corrective
medication or co-medication that might inuence the
outcome of the test result (Table 2) should be completely
washed out. Whereas this happens within a few days with
antihistamines or intravenous steroids for the treatment
of systemic reactions, a sucient wash out time for
topical steroids for treatment of contact allergy might be
up to 4 weeks (32).
As a general rule, DPT should be performed not earlier
than 4 weeks after the episode. But there is no dened
limit and no general rule nor agreement on this topic. As
an example, antibodies to penicillin may disappear from
the serum within 6 to 12 months, and skin reactivity
decreases over time (33), but hypersensitivity remains.
For this reason, some authors recommend repetition of
skin test or even rechallenge 2 to 4 weeks later (34),
although this view is not generally accepted (35).
Preparation for provocation procedures
Ethical considerations. The risk-benet ratio must be
acceptable (14): the drug must be important; i.e. it has to
be substantially more eective than other alternatives.
The condition being treated must be serious; no alternative testing method is available or the results are
inconclusive. The patient must be informed of the
consequences of both the use of alternative treatments
and the risks involved in DPT. The patient should give
oral (or even better written) informed consent for the test
(33).
Safeguards for DPT. Accurate and comprehensive records
should include a sucient description of the initial
episode treated, the drug exposure as well as a detailed
description of the adverse eects. An individual protocol
must be prepared, the procedures must be managed by an
expert. Resuscitation facilities should be available for
emergencies. Monitoring must be designed in such a way
that early signs of the relevant disorder arising from DPT
can be detected.
Aberer et al.
utmost importance, since even in healthy students and
hospital sta without any medication but placebo
capsules, 41% reported (mostly subjective) symptoms
like sedation, irritation, but even nasal congestion,
fever, exanthemas and urticaria within a 3-day observation period (41).
The subjects health status should be good on the day
of testing, without any sign of allergy or viral infection
that could stimulate an immune response even though
this might have been a potential co-factor for the original
reaction.
Patients should be observed as long as severe exposurerelated reactions may be expected. This depends on the
type of previous drug reaction, the drug under investigation (42) and the individual situation of the patient. If
mild reactions had occurred, observation after stabilisation is recommended for at least 2 hours. After severe
reactions hospitalization is mandatory because of the
possibility of biphasic episodes that can be lethal if not
recognized early and treated adequately (43). After
release, the patient should be equipped with an adequate
emergency treatment if further symptoms such as urticaria seem possible (antihistamines, betamimetics, glucocorticosteroids).
In general terms a safety rst policy should be
followed and in many cases an observation period of 24
hours is desirable. Local regulations may inuence these
procedures.
Test performance
Several factors inuence the decision for the adequate
procedure, the most important being the drug and/or
drug-ingredient itself, the type of previous adverse
reaction, the constitution of the patient at the time of
DPT and the availability/reliability of general clinical and
specic in vitro and in vivo tests. Here only general
recommendations shall be given, with special examples
according to the indications for testing as dened above:
1. Exclude hypersensitivity in non-suggestive history:
Many patients are wrongly labeled as being allergic,
based on a suggestive history but not proven by tests; or
proven by tests with limited predictive value, such as skin
tests with opiates, IgE detection in aspirin hypersensitivity (44), or other non-validated biological tests. In such
instances, DPT might be the most valuable aid or even
the only way to free the patient from his/her allergy.
As an example, many adverse reactions to local
anaesthetics are due to non-allergic factors that include
vasovagal or adrenergic responses. To exclude the rare
possibility of an immune mediated-reaction, a graded
exposure should be performed (2). Since however the
patient may be emotionally upset due to his or her past
experience during severe clinical reactions, placebo testing
(45) or even reverse placebo provocation (46) seems
indispensable in some patients where subjective symptoms prevail.
858
Table 3a. Simple algorithm for the interpretation of test results (adapted from 57)
Questions
Appropriate intervall agent-event
Known reaction to agent
Event reasonably explained by clinical
state or other (nondrug) therapies
Dechallenge attempted
Improved with dechallenge
Rechallenge attempted
Relapse on rechallenge
Definite
Probable
Possible
Conditional/dubious
Unrelated (no ADR)
Assessment
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
X
X
X
Evaluation
Identical reaction
Severity and extension increased, time interval shorter
Severity, localization and time course identical
Prodromi
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
P3
P2
P1
(P positive [P3 P1 are subgroups of positives]; S suggestive, but not conclusive; N negative)
859
Aberer et al.
procedures but has to be individualized following the
general rules of emergency treatment.
860
Psychological symptoms
Preexisting symptoms (e.g. urticaria)
Drug-induced aggravation
of preexisting disease
Self infliction
false-negative results
Antiallergic drugs
Missing co-factors (light,
co-medication, viral infection,
physical exercise,...)
Exposure and/or observation
time too short
Too short /too long time interval
from reaction
Dosage too low
Desensitization by testing
potentially dangerous
read out might be difficult (if subjective, unspecific symptoms prevail)
does not clarify the pathogenic mechanism of the reaction
not completely pathognomic reactions
false-negative results can occur
false-positive results can occur
co-factors, that are essential for the clinical symptoms might be absent
does not indicate mere sensitization which may become positive under certain
circumstances
Conclusion
Accurate identication of the agent inducing a patients
hypersensitivity reaction is important. The assessment has
to be based mostly on the observation of the clinical
signs, their time course and, eventually, their response to
antiallergic treatment, and, most importantly, to adequate test results, including DPT in some instances.
Conrmation of a presumptive diagnosis by a DPT is
often the only reliable way to establish a diagnosis, if
other diagnostic procedures such as in vivo skin testing
and in vitro laboratory tests do not lead to conclusive
results. This procedure should be undertaken only with
References
1. Bennin B, Apgar JT, Callen JP,
McDonald CJ. Guidelines of care for
cutaneous adverse drug. J Am Acad
Derm 1996;35:458461.
2. Bernstein L, Gruchalla RS, Lee RE,
Nicklas RA, Dykewicz MS. Ann
Allergy Asthma Immunol 1999;83:
665700.
3. Wasserfallen JB, Frei PC. Long-term
evaluation of usefulness of skin and
incremental challenge tests in patients
with history of adverse reaction to local
anesthetics. Allergy 1995;50:162165.
4. Gruchalla R. Understanding drug
allergies. J Allergy Clin Immunol
2000;105:637644.
861
Aberer et al.
13. de Weck AL. Penicillins and cephalosporins. In: Handbook of Experimental
Pharmacology, Vol. 63, Chapter 16,
ed.de Weck, Bundgaard H. Springer
Verlag, Berlin 1983:423482.
14. Li Wan Po A, Kendall MJ. Causality
assessment of adverse eects. When is
re-challenge ethically acceptable? Drug
Saftey 2001;24:793799.
15. Johansson SGO, Hourihane JOB,
Bousquet J, Bruijnzeel-Koomen C,
Dreborg S, Haahtela T, Kowalski
ML, Mygind N, Ring J, van Cauwenberge P, van Hage-Hamsten M,
Wuthrich B. Position paper. A revised
nomenclature for allergy. An EAACI
position statement from the EAACI
nomenclature task force. Allergy
2001;56:813824.
16. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN.
Incidence of adverse drug reactions in
hospitalized patients. A meta-analysis of
prospective studies. JAMA
1998;279:12001205.
17. Demoly P, Kropf R, Bircher A, Pichler WJ. Drug hypersensitivity: questionnaire. Allergy 1999;54:9991003.
18. Brockow K, Romano A, Blanca M,
Ring J, Pichler W, Demoly P. General
considerations for skin test procedures
in the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity.
Allergy 2002;57:4551.
19. Demoly P, Bousquet J. Drug allergy
diagnosis work up. Allergy
2002;57(Suppl. 72):7360.
20. Romano A, Quaratino D, Di Fonso
M, Papa G, Venuti A, Gasbarrini G.
A diagnostic protocol for evaluationg
nonimmediate reactions to aminopenicillins. J Allergy Clin Immunol
1999;103:11861190.
21. Stark BJ, Earl HS, Gross GN, Lumry
WR, Goodman EL, Sullivan TJ. Acute
and chronic desensitization of penicillinallergic patients using oral penicillin.
J Allergy Clin Immunol 1987;79:523
532.
22. Gleckman RA, Borrego F. Adverse
reactions to antibiotics. Postgrad Med
1997;101:97108.
23. Wolkenstein P, Revuz J. Drug-induced
severe skin reactions. Drug Safety
1995;13:5668.
24. Kanwar AJ, Bharija SC, Belhaj MS.
Fixed drug eruptions in children: a series
of 23 cases with provocative tests. Dermatologica 1986;172:315320.
25. Kauppinen K, Stubb S. Fixed eruptions
causative drugs and challenge tests. Br
J Dermatol 1985;112:575578.
862
863