Premium
Clindamycin skin testing has limited diagnostic potential
Author(s) -
Notman Melissa J.,
Phillips Elizabeth J.,
Knowles Sandra R.,
Weber Elizabeth A.,
Shear Neil H.
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
contact dermatitis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.524
H-Index - 96
eISSN - 1600-0536
pISSN - 0105-1873
DOI - 10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00716.x
Subject(s) - clindamycin , medicine , provocation test , dermatology , population , intradermal injection , surgery , antibiotics , immunology , pathology , alternative medicine , environmental health , microbiology and biotechnology , biology
We examined the role of clindamycin prick and intradermal skin testing in a tertiary care clinic population. Experience with diagnostic modalities such as prick and intradermal testing has been limited with clindamycin. A retrospective chart review was conducted for patients with immunologic reactions temporally associated with clindamycin who were referred to the Drug Safety Clinic (Toronto, Ontario). A total of 31 patients were identified who had undergone prick and intradermal skin testing. All 31 negative immediate prick and intradermal tests were followed by a 150 mg oral dose of clindamycin. 10/31 (32%) subjects had significant reactions to the oral clindamycin provocation. 2 patients reported delayed reactions at the clindamycin intradermal test sites. Our experience suggests that prick and intradermal skin testing is not adequate in identifying patients with previous allergic reactions associated with clindamycin. Oral provocation tests can be used in patients with histories of clindamycin adverse reactions; however, it should be offered on a risk‐benefit basis.