In vitro methods for diagnosing nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions to drugs.

Nonimmediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are difficult to manage in daily clinical practice, mainly owing to their heterogeneous clinical manifestations and the lack of selective biological markers. In vitro methods are necessaryto establish a diagnosis, especially given the low sensitivity of skin tests and the inherent risks of drug provocation testing. In vitro evaluation of nonimmediate DHRs must include approaches that can be applied during the different phases of the reaction. During the acute phase, monitoring markers in both skin and peripheral blood helps to discriminate between immediate and nonimmediate DHRs with cutaneous responses and to distinguish between reactions that, although they present similar clinical symptoms, are produced by different immunological mechanisms and therefore have a different treatment and prognosis. During the resolution phase, in vitro testing is used to detect the response of T cells to drug stimulation; however, this approach has certain limitations, such as the lack of validated studies assessing sensitivity. Moreover, in vitro tests indicate an immune response that is not always related to a DHR. In this review, members of the Immunology and Drug Allergy Committee of the Spanish Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (SEAIC) provide an overview of the most widely used in vitro tests for evaluating nonimmediate DHRs.

Clinical and Virological Efficacy of Etravirine Plus Two Active Nucleos(t)ide Analogs in an Heterogeneous HIV-Infected Population.

Etravirine (ETV) is recommended in combination with a boosted protease inhibitor plus an optimized background regimen for salvage therapy, but there is limited experience with its use in combination with two nucleos(t)ide reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). This multicenter study aimed to assess the efficacy of this combination in two scenarios: group A) subjects without virologic failure on or no experience with non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) switched due to adverse events and group B) subjects switched after a virologic failure on an efavirenz- or nevirapine-based regimen. The primary endpoint was efficacy at 52 weeks analysed by intention-to-treat. Virologic failure was defined as the inability to suppress plasma HIV-RNA to <50 copies/mL after 24 weeks on treatment, or a confirmed viral load >200 copies/mL in patients who had previously achieved a viral suppression or had an undetectable viral load at inclusion. Two hundred eighty seven patients were included. Treatment efficacy rates in group A and B were 88.0% (CI95, 83.9-92.1%) and 77.4% (CI95, 65.0-89.7%), respectively; the rates reached 97.2% (CI95, 95.1-99.3%) and 90.5% (CI95, 81.7-99.3), by on-treatment analysis. The once-a-day ETV treatment was as effective as the twice daily dosing regimen. Grade 1-2 adverse events were observed motivating a treatment switch in 4.2% of the subjects. In conclusion, ETV (once- or twice daily) plus two analogs is a suitable, well-tolerated combination both as a switching strategy and after failure with first generation NNRTIs, ensuring full drug activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01437241.