Next Article in Journal
Frozen Elephant Trunk Technique in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: Is It for All?
Next Article in Special Issue
Recent Updates in the Treatment of Erythema Multiforme
Previous Article in Journal
Neuroinflammation in Autism and Supplementation Based on Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids: A Narrative Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Dermatitis Herpetiformis: An Update on Diagnosis, Disease Monitoring, and Management
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Medicina
Volume 57
Issue 9
10.3390/medicina57090895
medicina-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Stevens–Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A Review of Diagnosis and Management

by
Robert Frantz
1,
Simo Huang
2,
Abhirup Are
1 and
Kiran Motaparthi
1,3,*
1
College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32606, USA
2
Department of Dermatology, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19140, USA
3
Department of Dermatology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32606, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Medicina 2021, 57(9), 895; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57090895
Submission received: 19 July 2021 / Revised: 23 August 2021 / Accepted: 24 August 2021 / Published: 28 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Updates to the Diagnosis and Medical Management of Vesiculobullous Disorders)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Stevens–Johnson Syndrome (SJS) and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN) are rare diseases that are characterized by widespread epidermal necrosis and sloughing of skin. They are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and early diagnosis and treatment is critical in achieving favorable outcomes for patients. In this scoping review, Excerpta Medica dataBASE and PubMed were searched for publications that addressed recent advances in the diagnosis and management of the disease. Multiple proteins (galectin 7 and RIP3) were identified that are promising potential biomarkers for SJS/TEN, although both are still in early phases of research. Regarding treatment, cyclosporine is the most effective therapy for the treatment of SJS, and a combination of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) and corticosteroids is most effective for SJS/TEN overlap and TEN. Due to the rare nature of the disease, there is a lack of prospective, randomized controlled trials and conducting these in the future would provide valuable insights into the management of this disease.

1. Introduction

Stevens–Johnson Syndrome (SJS) and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN) are dermatologic emergencies characterized by widespread epidermal necrolysis and sloughing. They are considered to have the same pathophysiology and are classified based on body surface area (BSA) involved (Table 1) [1]. These are rare diseases and reported incidence rates vary by location. Frey et al. [2] reported an incidence of 5.76 cases of SJS/TEN per million persons per year in the UK from 1995–2013. Hsu et al. [3] reported 9.2, 1.6, and 1.9 cases per million adults per year in the US from 2009–2012 for SJS, SJS/TEN, and TEN, respectively. Yang et al. [4] reported incidence rates in Korea from 2009–2013 as 3.96–5.03 and 0.94–1.45 per million persons per year for SJS and TEN, respectively. Regarding the pediatric population, Hsu et al. [5] reported an incidence rate of 5.3 and 0.4 cases per million children for SJS and TEN, respectively. Additionally, females are more commonly affected than males at a ratio of approximately 1.5:1 [6,7,8,9,10,11]. The mortality rates are 4.8–9% for SJS, 19.4–29% for SJS/TEN, and 14.8–48% for TEN [3,6].

2. Clinical Features

Clinical features, with the exception of BSA involved, are similar across the disease spectrum. Cutaneous involvement is preceded by a prodromal stage of symptoms, such as fever, malaise, sore throat, and cough in a majority of cases [12,13,14]. Subsequent cutaneous and mucosal involvement is universal and typically appears as erythematous macules or atypical target lesions on the trunk that progress to become confluent areas of erythema with dusky centers, flaccid blisters with a positive Nikolsky sign, and sheets of denuded epidermis [15,16]. The vast majority of patients have mucosal involvement, with two or more mucosal surfaces being involved in up to 80% of cases (Figure 1) [3]. Oral involvement is most common, with mucositis and ulceration occurring in up to 100% of cases [17]. Ocular involvement also occurs frequently, with severity ranging from conjunctival hyperemia to complete epidermal sloughing of the ocular surface. Early consultation with an ophthalmologist is essential to prevent long-term ocular sequelae [13,17,18,19]. Gynecologic involvement also varies in severity but is seen in up to 77% of female patients [17].

3. Pathophysiology

Drugs are the most common trigger of SJS/TEN (Table 2), but infection, most commonly Mycoplasma pneumonia, has also been implicated [12,15,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. In up to 15–30% of cases, no offending agent can be identified [1,29]. While the triggers of these diseases have been well-documented, their pathophysiology has still not been fully elucidated. They are believed to be T-cell-mediated, type IV hypersensitivity reactions. There are a number of hypotheses regarding how drugs generate an immunological response to cause SJS/TEN [30,31,32,33]. The first is the hapten/pro-hapten concept, which states that small-molecule drugs will covalently bind to proteins in serum, forming a complex that is recognized by certain HLA molecules and presented to T-cells to generate an immune response. The next hypothesis, called the pharmacological interaction (p-i) concept, states that chemically inert drugs, which cannot undergo covalent binding with serum proteins, bind HLA molecules directly leading to T cell activation. The final hypothesis is the altered peptide concept, which states that drugs bind inside HLA binding pockets in a way that alters presentation of self-proteins to T cells, such that they are no longer recognized as self, leading to an immune response [30,31,32,33]. Despite uncertainty regarding the exact mechanism, the end result is activation of T-cells in response to a drug or infection and downstream epidermal necrosis.
Early hypotheses postulated that keratinocyte death was mediated by soluble Fas ligand (sFasL) interactions with the Fas receptor on the surface of keratinocytes [34]. Subsequent studies identified granulysin as a more important mediator of apoptosis. Chung et al. [35] analyzed the blister fluid of SJS/TEN patients and found that granulysin levels were 2–4 times higher than perforin, granzyme B, and sFasL. Additionally, reducing granulysin levels reduced cytotoxicity and injection of granulysin into the skin of mice induced an SJS/TEN-like reaction [35]. Further studies confirmed the role of granulysin as a major mediator of the disease and showed that the levels of granulysin in blister fluid correlated with the severity of the disease [36,37,38]. While granulysin seems to be the main driver of epidermal necrosis, it does not act alone. Su et al. [39] examined the serum levels of 28 different cytokines and chemokines and found a number that were upregulated in patients with SJS/TEN, of which granulysin and IL-15 correlated with the severity of the disease. Additionally, the role of necroptosis, or programmed necrosis, has been examined and was found to contribute to keratinocyte death, which could have important diagnostic implications [30,40,41,42].

4. Differential Diagnosis

Prior to diagnosis of SJS/TEN, a broad differential diagnosis may be considered (Table 3). This includes other desquamating and vesiculobullous dermatoses, such as pemphigus vulgaris, linear IgA bullous dermatosis, staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome (SSSS), and erythema multiforme major (EMM). Importantly, EMM and SJS/TEN were historically classified as existing on the same disease spectrum, as the clinical and histopathologic presentation (Figure 2) of these diseases can be similar, but were later determined to be distinct diseases [6,13,14,15,16]. Thus, the diagnosis must be made on clinical parameters. Key features of these disorders are outlined in Table 4 [1,6,13,14,15,16,43,44,45].

5. Management

The management of SJS/TEN is multifaceted and begins with identification and cessation of the causative agent [46]. A thorough history is important to identify the causative agent [47], as symptoms typically present within 8 weeks of beginning therapy, with most cases appearing between 4 days and 4 weeks of starting a drug [12]. If history is not sufficient to ascertain the causative drug, a number of causality assessment tools (CATs) can be useful. The Algorithm for Drug Causality for Epidermal Necrolysis (ALDEN) [29] and the Liverpool Adverse Drug Reaction CAT [48] are algorithms that have proven to be effective identifiers of causative drugs. The lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) is an in vitro test that can detect sensitization of T cells to antigens and can be helpful in identification of causative drugs in SJS/TEN, although at this time it is largely used for research purposes [45].
Prognostication is also an important step in the management of SJS/TEN, as it can guide management and placement in an intensive care or burn unit [49]. The severity-of-illness score for Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (SCORTEN) scale is the most widely used tool for determining prognosis in patients with SJS/TEN. This has been verified as an effective tool in a number of studies [50,51]. Other studies, however, have shown that SCORTEN may overestimate actual mortality rates [52,53]. However, this discordance may potentially be attributed to improvements in supportive care since the development of SCORTEN in 1979 [51]. Noe et al. [54] developed an alternative prognostic algorithm called ABCD-10. This scoring system uses prior dialysis as a proxy for severe renal dysfunction, distinguishing it from SCORTEN. Both scoring systems seem to be reliable predictors of mortality, but one study [55] showed that SCORTEN was more accurate. The SCORTEN and ABCD-10 scoring systems and predicted mortality are outlined in Table 5 and Table 6. One important note for both scoring systems is how to determine the BSA involved, as an accurate estimate is critical for classification and prognostication. Creamer et al. [56] described that BSA involved includes both epidermis that is detachable (positive Nikolsky sign) and epidermis that is already detached. Areas of erythema without evidence of detachment or impending detachment are not included.
Removal of the offending agent and supportive care are the mainstays in treatment of SJS/TEN [57]. Adjunctive therapies, such as corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), are often utilized, although there is still no consensus on the most effective adjunctive therapy. The goal of this article is to review the most recent updates in both diagnosis and management of SJS/TEN in order to educate dermatologists and other physicians who are managing the acute care of patients with SJS/TEN.

6. Materials and Methods

A database search of PubMed and Embase was performed, initially focusing on review articles in the past 5 years, from March 2017 through March 2021, with keywords “Stevens–Johnson Syndrome”, “Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis”, “therapy”, “diagnosis”, “management”, and synonyms of all these key words. The reference section of each of the review articles was also reviewed to find other articles that contained pertinent information.

7. Clinical Updates

7.1. Updates on Diagnosis

7.1.1. Potential Biomarkers

Rapid diagnosis of SJS/TEN is critical in order to discontinue the offending agent, begin supportive and adjunctive therapies, and improve outcomes. However, the clinical presentation can be similar to a number of other blistering disorders, and diagnosis is not always straightforward. Given that the diagnosis of SJS/TEN is time sensitive, frozen sections can be utilized for more rapid decision making. SJS/TEN can be distinguished from SSSS by the level of epidermal detachment, which is subcorneal in SSSS and at the dermo-epidermal junction in SJS/TEN. Widespread keratinocytic necrosis is characteristic of SJS/TEN on histopathology [43,58]. The distinction between SJS/TEN and EMM is difficult to make because their histopathology can be identical [13,16]. In the early stage of both diseases, a vacuolar or lichenoid interface with scattered necrotic keratinocytes can be seen. As both diseases progress, a subepidermal split with increased epidermal necrosis is observed. In these cases, a heavier lymphocytic infiltrate favors EM while increased eosinophils and confluent epidermal necrosis favors SJS/TEN. However, these are not reliable distinguishing features and clinicopathologic correlation is required.
There are a number of studies that have investigated potential diagnostic markers (Table 7) of the disease, with early studies focusing on the role of granulysin. Abe et al. [37] analyzed the serum of 5 patients with SJS/TEN and found elevated levels of granulysin in 4 out of 5 patients, even before cutaneous detachment and mucosal involvement. Sera from thirty-one control patients were also analyzed and showed no elevations in serum granulysin levels. Chen et al. [36] found that granulysin levels in blister fluid were markedly elevated and correlated with disease severity in SJS/TEN. However, these findings were consistent across all cytotoxic T-lymphocyte (CTL)-mediated bullous blistering disorders, such as EMM and bullous fixed drug eruption (BFDE). Elevated serum granulysin levels were also observed in patients with drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) [38]. Therefore, while granulysin is elevated in both serum and blister fluid, it is not a specific finding for SJS/TEN and has limited utility in early diagnosis.
CCL-27 is another nonspecific cytokine that is likely involved in the pathogenesis of SJS/TEN and aids in the trafficking of T cells to the skin at sites of inflammation [30]. Tapia et al. [59] reported that CCL-27 levels were elevated in skin from patients with SJS/TEN during the acute phase. Wang et al. [60] then analyzed the levels of CCL-27 in sera from 27 patients with SJS/TEN and found elevations during the acute phase compared with 39 healthy controls. This implicates CCL-27 in the pathogenesis of SJS/TEN, but elevated CCL27 levels were also identified in non-bullous drug-induced exanthems. Therefore, the use of CCL-27 in diagnosis is limited in the same manner as granulysin, due to the lack of specificity.
There are a number of other potential biomarkers under investigation that may demonstrate specificity for SJS/TEN. In one study [61], peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from patients who had recovered from SJS/TEN were cultured and re-exposed to the causative drug. The supernatant of the culture fluid was analyzed using proteomics to identify potential biomarkers. This protocol was also used to evaluate the molecules secreted by PBMCs in non-severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions (cADRs). When comparing the two groups, Hama et al. [61] discovered one protein, galectin-7, exhibited higher levels in sera of SJS/TEN patients than in sera of non-severe cADRs (p = 0.005). Serum galectin-7 also correlated with disease severity with significantly higher levels during the acute phase and decreased levels in the late phase of the disease (>7 days). Galectin-7 could be a potential mediator of SJS/TEN and a helpful biomarker for diagnosis.
The role of necroptosis, or programmed necrosis, in SJS/TEN has been the focus of multiple studies. Necroptosis differs from apoptosis in that cell death is the result of external triggers that alter membrane permeability and result in cell lysis without the involvement of caspases. Recent studies have identified receptor-interacting kinase-3 (RIP3) as an important mediator [41,62]. Hasegawa et al. [41] confirmed that necroptotic keratinocytes release RIP3 into the sera of patients, and its levels correlated with the degree of necroptosis and severity of disease. Notably, the investigators also measured RIP3 levels in the sera of patients with EMM and found significantly higher levels in patients with SJS/TEN than EMM (p < 0.001). The use of serum RIP3 as a biomarker for the diagnosis of SJS/TEN could help distinguish between SJS/TEN and EMM.

7.1.2. Diagnostic Subclassification in Pediatric Patients

The diagnostic classification for pediatric patients has been recently updated. Canavan et al. [63] performed a systematic review of 202 patients with an SJS/TEN-like reaction to Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection. They noted that these patients had impressive mucosal involvement, but the cutaneous involvement was less significant and the prognosis more favorable compared with SJS/TEN. Canavan et al. named this dermatosis Mycoplasma pneumoniae-induced rash and mucositis (MIRM) and classified it as distinct from SJS/TEN and EM. Subsequently, multiple other studies implicated other infections as causes of MIRM-like reactions including adenovirus [64], influenza B [65], and Chlamydia pneumoniae [66].
In light of these findings, Ramien et al. [67] proposed a new classification for blistering disorders in pediatric patients. In this new system, SJS, SJS/TEN, and TEN are condensed into a single disorder called drug-induced epidermal necrolysis (DEN). The infection-related cases with severe mucosal involvement and relatively sparse cutaneous involvement were considered a distinct clinical identity and termed reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption (RIME). Erythema multiforme (EM) was classified as a distinct disease from DEN and RIME [68]. This new classification is worthwhile because the treatment of DEN and RIME differ. In DEN, identification and cessation of the causative drug with supportive care and possible immunosuppressive therapy are the pillars of treatment. RIME requires identification and treatment of the underlying infection, supportive care, and potential antimicrobial and immunosuppressive therapies. In fact, the use of antibiotics to treat community acquired pneumonia in patients with RIME has been emphasized [69,70]. One study examined the role of etanercept treatment in RIME and showed that this therapy led to improvement in physical findings within 2 days of drug administration [71]. However, this study is limited by its small sample size (n = 6) and treatment with antibiotics in 5/6 patients prior to administration of etanercept, which could also have contributed to the observed improvement. Further studies are required to clarify proper treatment strategies for both DEN and RIME.

7.2. Updates on Management

7.2.1. Non-Pharmacologic Treatment

Supportive care is the mainstay of treatment for patients with SJS/TEN and includes cessation of the causative drug, fluid and electrolyte management, infection control, and wound care. Of these components, identification and cessation of the causative drug is most important [46,49,72], but optimization of each measure is necessary to achieve the best outcomes.
Fluid, electrolyte, and nutrition management is important in SJS/TEN patients and mirrors the requirements of burn patients due to insensible losses through wounds, although fluid requirements are about 30% less in SJS/TEN patients than in burn patients with similar degrees of cutaneous involvement [73,74]. The environment should be kept warm (30–32 °C) [49] due to loss of thermoregulatory function of skin, and fluid replacement should be driven by urine output, with a goal of 0.5–1 mL/kg/h [73]. Enteral feeding should be initiated as early as possible and through nasogastric tube feeds if necessary [49].
Prophylactic antibiotics do not improve outcomes [75], but proper wound care and sterile handling are important in preventing infection. The role of surgical debridement has been controversial, and the decision to pursue this treatment option largely depends on where the care is being delivered. McCullough et al. [57] described a series of 40 SJS/TEN patients who were treated with their treatment algorithm, which included aggressive supportive care, surgical wound debridement with subsequent coverage with antimicrobial dressings, steroid cessation (if the patient was receiving steroids upon transfer), and IVIg. The authors of this study reported a 10% mortality rate, which was lower than the 16.7% mortality rate predicted by SCORTEN. While this result reflects an effective combination of treatments, it is difficult to identify surgical debridement as the cause of that efficacy. Dorafshar et al. [76] analyzed the efficacy of “anti-shear” therapy, in which blister fluid is aspirated and denuded epidermis is left in place to act as a biological skin graft. The authors described 48 patients at their care center who received this treatment and presented a mortality reduction of 11 percent compared to the expected mortality predicted by SCORTEN. Anti-shear therapy is an alternative to surgical debridement and could reduce hospital costs as well as pain. However, there is a lack of high-quality evidence to guide decision-making regarding surgical debridement [77], and further studies are needed to fully understand the role of this therapy.

7.2.2. Pharmacologic Treatment

Due to the rarity of the disease, few prospective studies have analyzed the efficacy of specific adjunctive therapies for SJS/TEN. As a result, there is no established standard of care pertaining to pharmacologic treatment. Due to the immunologic nature of the disease, it is believed that immunosuppressive therapies will aid in treatment, and many case reports have reported positive results with varying treatment regimens involving different combinations of corticosteroids, IVIg, cyclosporine, and TNF-alpha inhibitors [21,78,79,80,81]. However, it is difficult to determine if disease remission was due to specific treatment or simply the natural history of the disease. Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have attempted to overcome these methodologic limitations and clarify the role of pharmacologic therapies in the treatment of SJS/TEN.
The role of corticosteroids as monotherapy is still debated [82]. Recently, Zimmermann et al. [83] performed a meta-analysis of 11 studies to compare the use of corticosteroids versus supportive therapy and found a positive, although statistically insignificant (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29–1.01), treatment effect. Other studies have shown no improvement in mortality with the use of corticosteroids alone [10,30]. The role of IVIg has also been controversial, and there appears to be no mortality benefit associated with monotherapy [56,58,84,85].
Despite uncertainty in the results of these therapies, there are a number of other treatment options that show promise. Cyclosporine has shown positive results in a number of studies to this point [83,86,87,88,89]. Ng et al. [88] performed a meta-analysis of 10 studies and reported on the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) of cyclosporine compared with supportive care. The SMR takes into account baseline severity of the disease, allowing for a more accurate depiction of mortality improvement as compared to mortality ratios (MR). In this study, the authors reported an SMR of 0.320 (95% CI, 0.119–0.522, p = 0.002), indicating a survival benefit in patients treated with cyclosporine. Chen et al. [89] performed a meta-analysis of 7 studies and reported similarly positive results with an SMR of 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19–0.95) when cyclosporine was administered.
In another study, Tsai et al. [90] analyzed treatment outcomes of a number of therapies and performed a meta-analysis of 67 studies involving 2079 patients. The authors only examined the mortality outcomes of patients with SJS/TEN overlap and TEN, choosing to exclude SJS outcomes because mortality is typically lower. The only therapy that showed statistically significant improvements in outcomes was the combination of IVIg and corticosteroids, with an SMR of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.31–0.93). Historically, IVIg has been used as a monotherapy [91], but it only appears to be effective when combined with corticosteroids. These authors also reported promising results for cyclosporine (with or without IVIg), IVIg and plasmapheresis, and etanercept, although they emphasized the need for further studies.
Han et al. [92] performed a prospective observational study of 28 patients with SJS/TEN overlap or TEN, 13 of whom received plasmapheresis and 15 of whom did not. Of the 13 that received plasmapheresis, 7 were also treated with concomitant corticosteroids or IVIg. Using a severity of illness score that evaluated mucosal lesions, cutaneous lesions, and overall general condition (scores 0–39), it was shown that patients who received plasmapheresis had a lower severity of illness scores later in the disease course (days 7, 10, and 20).
TNF-alpha inhibitors are also of interest due to their immunosuppressive effects. Zhang et al. [93] reviewed 21 case reports, 4 case series, and 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that analyzed the use of TNF-alpha inhibitors and reported positive outcomes in 86.8% of patients. One of these RCTs [94] included 91 patients and showed improvement in mortality. The observed mortality rate of 8.3% was lower than that predicted by SCORTEN (17.7%) and lower than the mortality associated with corticosteroid treatment (16.3%), although these results were not statistically significant.
Given the lack of consensus on the most effective pharmacological treatment for SJS/TEN, practical issues such as cost must also be taken into account when determining treatment course. Table 8 and Table 9 outline practical considerations for these drugs, including dosing regimens and costs.

8. Discussion

SJS/TEN is a dermatologic emergency that causes significant morbidity and mortality. Early in the disease course, there is a broad differential diagnosis that needs to be considered, and prompt diagnosis is critical in achieving optimal outcomes. For most of the potential differential diagnoses, clinical morphology and histopathology can readily distinguish them from SJS/TEN. However, EMM is a disease that has identical histopathological features to SJS/TEN, and confident distinction between these two disorders requires experience and more careful correlation. SJS/TEN has significantly higher mortality and morbidity rates than those of EMM, often necessitating surgical or medical therapy beyond supportive care alone. A number of serological tests show promise in expanding the ability to diagnose SJS/TEN. Granulysin and CCL-27 serum markers are elevated in patients with SJS/TEN and can be helpful markers to monitor disease severity. However, these markers are not specific for SJS/TEN and are elevated in other disorders, limiting their specificity. Both galectin-7 and RIP3 play a pathogenic role and are elevated to a greater degree in the sera of patients with SJS/TEN compared to other cADRs. Further research is required before these markers can be reliably used for diagnosis.
Once diagnosed, the management of SJS/TEN focuses primarily on supportive care and wound management with the addition of adjunctive medications. The role of surgical debridement has been debated, and evidence has shown that both surgical debridement and anti-shear therapy improve patient outcomes. Wound management and infection prevention improve outcomes, as both therapies are effective. Corticosteroids, IVIg, cyclosporine, TNF-alpha inhibitors, and plasmapheresis are therapeutic options. Variable results have been described, and there is still no consensus on the treatment of choice. Few RCTs have been conducted, and most of the research published has been in the form of case reports, case studies, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The most efficacious treatments appear to be cyclosporine and a combination of corticosteroids with IVIg. Both have shown statistically significant improvements to patient mortality. It is also important to consider cost effectiveness when selecting therapies. Of the drugs described in the treatment of SJS/TEN, the most expensive is infliximab, followed by IVIg and etanercept. The least expensive options are cyclosporine and corticosteroids. Ultimately, further prospective studies are required to solidify treatment guidelines.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.M., R.F. and S.H.; writing-original draft preparation, R.F. and S.H.; writing-review and editing, K.M. and A.A.; supervision, K.M. All authors have read and agreed to the final version of the published manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Duong, T.A.; Valeyrie-Allanore, L.; Wolkenstein, P.; Chosidow, O. Severe cutaneous adverse reactions to drugs. Lancet 2017, 390, 1996–2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Frey, N.; Jossi, J.; Bodmer, M.; Bircher, A.; Jick, S.; Meier, C.R.; Spoendlin, J. The Epidemiology of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis in the UK. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2017, 137, 1240–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Hsu, D.; Brieva, J.; Silverberg, N.B.; Silverberg, J. Morbidity and Mortality of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis in United States Adults. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2016, 136, 1387–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Yang, M.-S.; Lee, J.Y.; Kim, J.; Kim, G.-W.; Kim, B.-K.; Kim, J.-Y.; Park, H.-W.; Cho, S.-H.; Min, K.-U.; Kang, H.-R. Incidence of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A Nationwide Population-Based Study Using National Health Insurance Database in Korea. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0165933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hsu, D.Y.; Brieva, J.; Silverberg, N.B.; Paller, A.S.; Silverberg, J.I. Pediatric Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necroly-sis in the United States. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2017, 76, 811–817.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Paulmann, M.; Mockenhaupt, M. Severe skin reactions: Clinical picture, epidemiology, etiology, pathogenesis, and treatment. Allergo J. Int. 2019, 28, 311–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lim, V.M.; Do, A.; Berger, T.G.; Nguyen, A.H.; Deweese, J.; Malone, J.D.; Jordan, K.; Hom, F.; Tuffanelli, L.; Fillari, P.; et al. A decade of burn unit experience with Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: Clinical pathological diagnosis and risk factor awareness. Burns 2016, 42, 836–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Lissia, M.; Mulas, P.; Bulla, A.; Rubino, C. Toxic epidermal necrolysis (Lyell’s disease). Burns 2010, 36, 152–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Richer, V.; Bouffard, D.; Belisle, A.; Duranceau, L.; Perreault, I.; Provost, N. Acute blistering diseases on the burn ward: Beyond Stevens–Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. Burns 2013, 39, 1290–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sekula, P.; Dunant, A.; Mockenhaupt, M.; Naldi, L.; Bavinck, J.N.B.; Halevy, S.; Kardaun, S.; Sidoroff, A.; Liss, Y.; Schumacher, M.; et al. Comprehensive Survival Analysis of a Cohort of Patients with Stevens–Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2013, 133, 1197–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Paggiaro, A.O.; Silva, E.; Filho, M.L.; de Carvalho, V.F.; Isaac, C.; Gemperli, R. The Role of Biological Skin Substitutes in Ste-vens-Johnson Syndrome: Systematic Review. Plast. Surg. Nurs. Off. J. Am. Soc. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Nurses 2018, 38, 121–127. [Google Scholar]
  12. Charlton, O.A.; Harris, V.; Phan, K.; Mewton, E.; Jackson, C.; Cooper, A. Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis and Steven-Johnson Syn-drome: A Comprehensive Review. Adv. Wound Care 2020, 9, 426–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Guvenir, H.; Arikoglu, T.; Vezir, E.; Misirlioglu, E.D. Clinical Phenotypes of Severe Cutaneous Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2019, 25, 3840–3854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Paulmann, M.; Mockenhaupt, M. Fever in Stevens–Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis in Pediatric Cases. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 2017, 36, 513–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Alerhand, S.; Cassella, C.; Koyfman, A. Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis in the Pediatric Popula-tion: A Review. Pediatric Emerg. Care 2016, 32, 472–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Grünwald, P.; Mockenhaupt, M.; Panzer, R.; Emmert, S. Erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis—Diagnosis and treatment. JDDG J. Ger. Soc. Dermatol. 2020, 18, 547–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Shanbhag, S.; Chodosh, J.; Fathy, C.; Goverman, J.; Mitchell, C.; Saeed, H.N. Multidisciplinary care in Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Ther. Adv. Chronic Dis. 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Basu, S.; Shanbhag, S.S.; Gokani, A.; Kedar, R.; Bahuguna, C.; Sangwan, V.S. Chronic Ocular Sequelae of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome in Children: Long-term Impact of Appropriate Therapy on Natural History of Disease. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2018, 189, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gregory, D.G. New Grading System and Treatment Guidelines for the Acute Ocular Manifestations of Stevens-Johnson Syn-drome. Ophthalmology 2016, 123, 1653–1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Aghdam, M.K.; Ahmadiafshar, A.; Eftekhari, K. Toxic epidermal necrolysis syndrome following single-dose diclofenac suppos-itory, a case report. J. Compr. Pediatrics 2020, 11, e100496. [Google Scholar]
  21. Alajmi, A.; Jfri, A.; Gomolin, A.; Jafarian, F. A pediatric case of Stevens-Johnson syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis with rap-id response to intravenous cyclosporine. JAAD Case Rep. 2020, 6, 555–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Maloney, N.J.; Ravi, V.; Cheng, K.; Bach, D.Q.; Worswick, S. Stevens-Johnson syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis-like reac-tions to checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review. Int. J. Dermatol. 2020, 59, e183–e188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Simonsen, A.B.; Kaae, J.; Ellebaek, E.; Svane, I.M.; Zachariae, C. Cutaneous adverse reactions to anti–PD-1 treatment—A systematic review. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2020, 83, 1415–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Madabhavi, I.; Revannasiddaiah, S.; Patel, A.; Anand, A. Toxic epidermal necrolysis with the use of tamoxifen. BMJ Case Rep. 2015, 2015, bcr2014209102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Mani, R.; Monteleone, C.; Schalock, P.C.; Truong, T.; Zhang, X.B.; Wagner, M.L. Rashes and other hypersensitivity reactions associ-ated with antiepileptic drugs: A review of current literature. Seizure 2019, 71, 270–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Rashid, M.; Kashyap, A.; Undela, K. Valproic acid and Stevens-Johnson syndrome: A systematic review of descriptive studies. Int. J. Dermatol. 2019, 58, 1014–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Gupta, S.S.; Sabharwal, N.; Patti, R.; Kupfer, Y. Allopurinol-Induced Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. Am. J. Med. Sci. 2019, 357, 348–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Sibbald, C.; Putterman, E.; Micheletti, R.; Treat, J.; Castelo-Soccio, L. Retrospective review of drug-induced Stevens-Johnson syn-drome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis cases at a pediatric tertiary care institution. Pediatric Dermatol. 2020, 37, 461–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sassolas, B.; Haddad, C.; Mockenhaupt, M.; Dunant, A.; Liss, Y.; Bork, K.; Haustein, U.F.; Vieluf, D.; Roujeau, J.C.; Le Louet, H.; et al. ALDEN, an algorithm for assessment of drug causal-ity in stevens-johnson syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: Comparison with case-control analysis. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2010, 88, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Hasegawa, A.; Abe, R. Recent advances in managing and understanding Stevens-Johnson syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. F1000Research 2020, 9, 612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Abe, R. Immunological response in Stevens-Johnson syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. J. Dermatol. 2015, 42, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Adam, J.; Pichler, W.J.; Yerly, D. Delayed drug hypersensitivity: Models of T-cell stimulation. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2010, 71, 701–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Pichler, W.J. Modes of presentation of chemical neoantigens to the immune system. Toxicology 2002, 181–182, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Abe, R.; Shimizu, T.; Shibaki, A.; Nakamura, H.; Watanabe, H.; Shimizu, H. Toxic epidermal necrolysis and Stevens-Johnson syn-drome are induced by soluble fas ligand. Am. J. Pathol. 2003, 162, 1515–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chung, W.-H.; Hung, S.-I.; Yang, J.-Y.; Su, S.-C.; Huang, S.-P.; Wei, C.-Y.; Chin, S.-W.; Chiou, C.-C.; Chu, S.-C.; Ho, H.-C.; et al. Granulysin is a key mediator for disseminated keratinocyte death in Stevens-Johnson syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. Nat. Med. 2008, 14, 1343–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Chen, C.B.; Kuo, K.L.; Wang, C.W.; Lu, C.W.; Chung-Yee, H.R.; Lu, K.L.; Chang, W.C.; Chen, W.T.; Yun, F.; Teng, Y.C.; et al. Detecting Lesional Granulysin Levels for Rapid Di-agnosis of Cytotoxic T lymphocyte–Mediated Bullous Skin Disorders. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 2020, 9, 1327–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Abe, R.; Yoshioka, N.; Murata, J.; Fujita, Y.; Shimizu, H. Granulysin as a marker for early diagnosis of the Stevens-Johnson syn-drome. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, 514–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Saito, N.; Abe, R.; Yoshioka, N.; Murata, J.; Fujita, Y.; Shimizu, H. Prolonged elevation of serum granulysin in drug-induced hy-persensitivity syndrome. Br. J. Dermatol. 2012, 167, 452–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Su, S.-C.; Mockenhaupt, M.; Wolkenstein, P.; Dunant, A.; le Gouvello, S.; Chen, C.-B.; Chosidow, O.; Valeyrie-Allanore, L.; Bellon, T.; Sekula, P.; et al. Interleukin-15 Is Associated with Severity and Mortality in Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2017, 137, 1065–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Hasegawa, A.; Shinkuma, S.; Hayashi, R.; Hama, N.; Watanabe, H.; Kinoshita, M.; Ogawa, Y.; Abe, R. 019 Serum RIP3 level as a severi-ty-predictive marker for Stevens-Johnson syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2019, 139, S4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Hasegawa, A.; Shinkuma, S.; Hayashi, R.; Hama, N.; Watanabe, H.; Kinoshita, M.; Ogawa, Y.; Abe, R. RIP3 as a diagnostic and severity marker for Stevens-Johnson syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 2020, 8, 1768–1771.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Saito, N.; Qiao, H.; Yanagi, T.; Shinkuma, S.; Nishimura, K.; Suto, A.; Fujita, Y.; Suzuki, S.; Nomura, T.; Nakamura, H.; et al. An annexin A1-FPR1 interaction contributes to necrop-tosis of keratinocytes in severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions. Sci. Transl. Med. 2014, 6, 245ra95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Abate, M.S.; Battle, L.R.; Emerson, A.N.; Gardner, J.M.; Shalin, S.C. Dermatologic Urgencies and Emergencies: What Every Pathologist Should Know. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2019, 143, 919–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Kerl, K.; Kerl, H. Severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions. Diagn. Histopathol. 2020, 27, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lin, C.-C.; Chen, C.-B.; Wang, C.-W.; Hung, S.-I.; Chung, W.-H. Stevens-Johnson syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: Risk factors, causality assessment and potential prevention strategies. Expert Rev. Clin. Immunol. 2020, 16, 373–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Garcia-Doval, I.; LeCleach, L.; Bocquet, H.; Otero, X.L.; Roujeau, J.C. Toxic epidermal necrolysis and Stevens-Johnson syndrome: Does early withdrawal of causative drugs decrease the risk of death? Arch. Dermatol. 2000, 136, 323–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Cavkaytar, O.; Kuyucu, S. An Update on the Management of Severe Cutaneous Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2019, 25, 3881–3901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gallagher, R.M.; Kirkham, J.J.; Mason, J.R.; Bird, K.A.; Williamson, P.R.; Nunn, A.J.; Turner, M.A.; Smyth, R.L.; Pirmohamed, M. Development and inter-rater reliability of the Liverpool adverse drug reaction causality assessment tool. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e28096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Coias, J.L.; Abbas, L.F.; Cardones, A.R. Management of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A Review and Update. Curr. Dermatol. Rep. 2019, 8, 219–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hu, C.-H.; Chang, N.-J.; Liu, E.-W.; Chuang, S.-S.; Chung, W.-H.; Yang, J.-Y. SCORTEN and impaired renal function related to mortality of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis syndrome patients in the Asian population. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2012, 27, 628–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Torres-Navarro, I.; Briz-Redón, Á.; Botella-Estrada, R. Accuracy of SCORTEN to predict the prognosis of Stevens-Johnson syn-drome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2020, 34, 2066–2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Imahara, S.D.; Holmes, J.H.; Heimbach, D.M.; Engrav, L.E.; Honari, S.; Klein, M.B.; Gibran, N. SCORTEN Overestimates Mortality in the Setting of a Standardized Treatment Protocol. J. Burn. Care Res. 2006, 27, 270–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Micheletti, R.G.; Chiesa-Fuxench, Z.; Noe, M.H.; Stephen, S.; Aleshin, M.; Agarwal, A.; Boggs, J.; Cardones, A.R.; Chen, J.K.; Cotliar, J.; et al. Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/Toxic Epi-dermal Necrolysis: A Multicenter Retrospective Study of 377 Adult Patients from the United States. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2018, 138, 2315–2321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Noe, M.H.; Rosenbach, M.; Hubbard, R.A.; Mostaghimi, A.; Cardones, A.R.; Chen, J.K.; Cotliar, J.; Davis, M.D.P.; Dominguez, A.; Fox, L.P.; et al. Development and Validation of a Risk Prediction Model for In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients With Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necroly-sis-ABCD-10. JAMA Dermatol. 2019, 155, 448–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Torres-Navarro, I.; Briz-Redón, Á.; Botella-Casas, G.; Sahuquillo-Torralba, A.; Calle-Andrino, A.; de Unamuno-Bustos, B.; Piqueras-García, J.; Ginés, J.R.; Tapial, J.M.; de Miquel, V.A.; et al. Accuracy of SCORTEN and ABCD-10 to predict mortality and the influence of renal function in Stevens–Johnson syn-drome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. J. Dermatol. 2020, 47, 1182–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Creamer, D.; Walsh, S.A.; Dziewulski, P.; Exton, L.S.; Lee, H.Y.; Dart, J.K.G.; Setterfield, J.; Bunker, C.B.; Ardern-Jones, M.R.; Watson, K.M.T.; et al. UK guidelines for the management of Ste-vens-Johnson syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis in adults 2016. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2016, 69, e119–e153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. McCullough, M.; Burg, M.; Lin, E.; Peng, D.; Garner, W. Steven Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis in a burn unit: A 15-year experience. Burn 2017, 43, 200–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. McPherson, T.; Exton, L.S.; Biswas, S.; Creamer, D.; Dziewulski, P.; Newell, L.; Tabor, K.L.; Wali, G.N.; Walker, G.; Walker, R.; et al. British Association of Dermatologists’ guide-lines for the management of Stevens–Johnson Syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis in children and young people. Br. J. Dermatol. 2019, 181, 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Tapia, B.; Padial, A.; Sánchez-Sabaté, E.; Alvarez-Ferreira, J.; Morel, E.; Blanca, M.; Bellón, T. Involvement of CCL27-CCR10 interactions in drug-induced cutaneous reactions. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2004, 114, 335–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wang, F.; Ye, Y.; Luo, Z.Y.; Gao, Q.; Luo, D.Q.; Zhang, X. Diverse expression of TNF-α and CCL27 in serum and blister of Ste-vens-Johnson syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. Clin. Transl. Allergy 2018, 8, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Hama, N.; Nishimura, K.; Hasegawa, A.; Yuki, A.; Kume, H.; Adachi, J.; Kinoshita, M.; Ogawa, Y.; Nakajima, S.; Nomura, T.; et al. Galectin-7 as a potential biomarker of Ste-vens-Johnson syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: Identification by targeted proteomics using causative drug-exposed peripheral blood cells. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 2019, 7, 2894–2897.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kim, S.K.; Kim, W.J.; Yoon, J.H.; Ji, J.H.; Morgan, M.J.; Cho, H.; Kim, Y.C.; Kim, Y.-S. Upregulated RIP3 Expression Potentiates MLKL Phosphoryla-tion-Mediated Programmed Necrosis in Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2015, 135, 2021–2030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Canavan, T.N.; Mathes, E.F.; Frieden, I.; Shinkai, K. Mycoplasma pneumoniae–induced rash and mucositis as a syndrome distinct from Stevens-Johnson syndrome and erythema multiforme: A systematic review. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2015, 72, 239–245.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Gámez-González, L.B.; Peña-Varela, C.; Ramírez-López, J.M.; Yamazaki-Nakashimada, M.A. Adenoviral-induced rash and mu-cositis: Expanding the spectrum of reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption. Pediatric Dermatol. 2020, 38, 306–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Goyal, A.; Hook, K. Two pediatric cases of influenza B-induced rash and mucositis: Stevens-Johnson syndrome or expansion of the Mycoplasma pneumoniae -induced rash with mucositis (MIRM) spectrum? Pediatr. Dermatol. 2019, 36, 929–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Mayor-Ibarguren, A.; Feito-Rodriguez, M.; González-Ramos, J.; del Rosal-Rabes, T.; González-Sainz, F.J.; Sánchez-Orta, A.; de Lucas-Laguna, R. Mucositis Secondary to Chlamydia pneumoniae Infection: Expanding the Mycoplasma pneumoniae–Induced Rash and Mu-cositis Concept. Pediatric Dermatol. 2017, 34, 465–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Ramien, M.; Goldman, J.L. Pediatric SJS-TEN: Where are we now? F1000Research 2020, 9, 982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ramien, M.L.; Bahubeshi, A.; Eichenfield, L.; Lara-Corrales, I.; Nopper, A.J.; Pope, E.; Levy, M.L.; Shear, N.H. Redefining severe cutaneous reactions in children. Pediatric Dermatol. 2018, 35, 716–717. [Google Scholar]
  69. Ramien, M.; Bruckner, A.L. Mucocutaneous Eruptions in Acutely Ill Pediatric Patients—Think of Mycoplasma pneumoniae (and Other Infections) First. JAMA Dermatol. 2020, 156, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ramien, M.L. Reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption: Mycoplasma pneumoniae -induced rash and mucositis and other parainfectious eruptions. Clin. Exp. Dermatol. 2021, 46, 420–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Miller, M.M.; Kamath, S.; Hughes, M.; Harter, N.; Luu, M. Evaluation of Etanercept for Treatment of Reactive Infectious Mucocu-taneous Eruption. JAMA Dermatol. 2021, 157, 230–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gupta, L.K.; Martin, A.M.; Agarwal, N.; D’Souza, P.; Das, S.; Kumar, R.; Pande, S.; Das, N.K.; Kumareshan, M.; Kumar, P.; et al. Guidelines for the management of Stevens-Johnson syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: An Indian perspective. Indian J. Dermatol. Venereol. Leprol. 2016, 82, 603–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Schneider, J.A.; Cohen, P.R. Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A Concise Review with a Compre-hensive Summary of Therapeutic Interventions Emphasizing Supportive Measures. Adv. Ther. 2017, 34, 1235–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Liotti, L.; Caimmi, S.; Bottau, P.; Bernardini, R.; Cardinale, F.; Saretta, F.; Francesca, M.; Giuseppe, C.; Fabrizio, F.; Carlo, C. Clinical features, outcomes and treatment in chil-dren with drug induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. Acta Biomed. 2019, 90, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  75. Palmieri, T.L.; Greenhalgh, D.G.; Saffle, J.R.; Spence, R.J.; Peck, M.D.; Jeng, J.C.; Mozingo, D.W.; Yowler, C.J.; Sheridan, R.L.; Ahrenholz, D.H.; et al. A multicenter review of toxic epidermal necroly-sis treated in U.S. burn centers at the end of the twentieth century. J. Burn Care Rehabil. 2002, 23, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Dorafshar, A.H.; Dickie, S.R.; Cohn, A.B.; Aycock, J.K.; O’Connor, A.; Tung, A.; Gottlieb, L. Antishear therapy for Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: An alternative treatment approach. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2008, 122, 154–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Jaller, J.A.; McLellan, B.N.; Balagula, Y. Wound Management in Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. Curr. Dermatol. Rep. 2020, 9, 58–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Chafranska, L.; Saunte, D.M.; Behrendt, N.; Nygaard, U.; Christensen, R.J.; Sand, C.; Jemec, G.B. Pediatric Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis treated successfully with infliximab. Pediatric Dermatol. 2019, 36, 342–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Nassim, J.S.; Karim, S.A.; Grenier, P.; Schmidt, B.; Jones, K.M. Infantile Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: Successful treatment of an 8-week-old with intravenous immunoglobulin and amniotic membrane transplant. Pediatric Dermatol. 2021, 38, 202–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Wang, R.; Zhong, S.; Tu, P.; Li, R.; Wang, M. Rapid remission of Stevens-Johnson syndrome by combination therapy using etanercept and intravenous immunoglobulin and a review of the literature. Dermatol. Ther. 2019, 32, e12832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Coulombe, J.; Belzile, E.; Duhamel, A.; Rault, P.; Buteau, C.; Debruycker, J.-J.; Bussières, J.-F. Pediatric SJS/TEN Subdued by a Combination of Dexamethasone, Cyclosporine, and Etanercept. J. Cutan. Med. Surg. 2019, 23, 547–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Michaels, B.; del Rosso, J.Q. The role of systemic corticosteroid therapy in erythema multiforme major and stevens-johnson syndrome a review of past and current opinions. J. Clin. Aesthetic Dermatol. 2009, 2, 51. [Google Scholar]
  83. Zimmermann, S.; Sekula, P.; Venhoff, M.; Motschall, E.; Knaus, J.; Schumacher, M.; Mockenhaupt, M. Systemic Immunomodulating Therapies for Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2017, 153, 514–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Huang, Y.-C.; Li, Y.-C.; Chen, T.-J. The efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulin for the treatment of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Dermatol. 2012, 167, 424–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Lee, H.Y.; Lim, Y.L.; Thirumoorthy, T.; Pang, S.M. The role of intravenous immunoglobulin in Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A ret-rospective analysis of 64 patients managed in a specialized centre. Br. J. Dermatol. 2013, 169, 1304–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Gilbert, M.; Scherrer, L.A. Efficacy and safety of cyclosporine in Stevens-Johnson syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. Dermatol. Ther. 2019, 32, e12758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  87. González-Herrada, C.; Rodríguez-Martín, S.; Cachafeiro, L.; Lerma, V.; González, O.; Lorente, J.A.; Rodríguez-Miguel, A.; González-Ramos, J.; Roustan, G.; Ramírez, E.; et al. Cyclosporine Use in Epidermal Necrolysis Is Associated with an Important Mortality Reduction: Evidence from Three Different Approaches. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2017, 137, 2092–2100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Ng, Q.X.; De Deyn, M.L.Z.Q.; Venkatanarayanan, N.; Ho, C.Y.X.; Yeo, W.-S. A meta-analysis of cyclosporine treatment for Stevens–Johnson Syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. J. Inflamm. Res. 2018, 11, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  89. Chen, Y.-T.; Hsu, C.-Y.; Chien, Y.-N.; Lee, W.-R.; Huang, Y.-C. Efficacy of cyclosporine for the treatment of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: Systemic review and meta-analysis. Dermatol. Sin. 2017, 35, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Tsai, T.Y.; Huang, I.H.; Chao, Y.C.; Li, H.; Hsieh, T.S.; Wang, H.H.; Huang, Y.T.; Chen, C.Y.; Cheng, Y.C.; Kuo, P.H.; et al. Treating Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis with systemic immunomodulating therapies: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2021, 84, 390–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Fernandez, A.P.; Kerdel, F.A. The use of i.v. IG therapy in dermatology. Dermatol. Ther. 2007, 20, 288–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Han, F.; Zhang, J.; Guo, Q.; Feng, Y.; Gao, Y.; Guo, L.; Hou, Y.; An, J.; Wang, X.; Yan, B.; et al. Successful treatment of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis using plasmaphere-sis: A prospective observational study. J. Crit. Care 2017, 42, 65–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Zhang, S.; Tang, S.; Li, S.; Pan, Y.; Ding, Y. Biologic TNF-alpha inhibitors in the treatment of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A systemic review. J. Dermatol. Treat. 2020, 31, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Wang, C.-W.; Yang, L.-Y.; Chen, C.-B.; Ho, H.-C.; Hung, S.-I.; Yang, C.-H.; Chang, C.-J.; Su, S.-C.; Hui, R.C.-Y.; Chin, S.-W.; et al. Randomized, controlled trial of TNF-α antagonist in CTL-mediated severe cutaneous adverse reactions. J. Clin. Investig. 2018, 128, 985–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Medicina 57 00895 g001 550
Figure 1. A patient with Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis due to carbamazepine. Dusky macules which reach confluence, along with epithelial detachment on the face and lips.
Figure 1. A patient with Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis due to carbamazepine. Dusky macules which reach confluence, along with epithelial detachment on the face and lips.
Medicina 57 00895 g001
Medicina 57 00895 g002 550
Figure 2. Histopathology of Stevens–Johnson Syndrome. Full thickness epidermal necrosis, an orthokeratotic stratum corneum, and sparse dermal inflammation are typical and supportive but nonspecific features.
Figure 2. Histopathology of Stevens–Johnson Syndrome. Full thickness epidermal necrosis, an orthokeratotic stratum corneum, and sparse dermal inflammation are typical and supportive but nonspecific features.
Medicina 57 00895 g002
Table
Table 1. Diagnosis of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS) and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN) based on body surface area (BSA) (%) involvement.
Table 1. Diagnosis of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS) and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN) based on body surface area (BSA) (%) involvement.
Diagnosis Based on BSA (%)
SJS<10%
SJS/TEN Overlap10–30%
TEN>30%
Table
Table 2. Common drugs implicated in the pathogenesis of SJS/TEN.
Table 2. Common drugs implicated in the pathogenesis of SJS/TEN.
Common Drug Triggers of SJS/TEN
Anti-epilepticsAntibiotics
○ Lamotrigine○ TMP-SMX
○ Phenytoin○ Aminopenicillins
○ Carbamazepine○ Tetracyclines
○ Valproic Acid○ Cephalosporins
○ PhenobarbitalImmune Checkpoint Inhibitors
NSAIDs○ Nivolumab
Allopurinol○ Pembrolizumab
Nevirapine
Table
Table 3. Differential diagnosis of suspected SJS/TEN.
Table 3. Differential diagnosis of suspected SJS/TEN.
Differential Diagnosis of SJS/TEN
Erythema multiforme majorPemphigus vulgaris
Staphylococcal scalded skin syndromeBullous pemphigoid
Generalized fixed drug eruption (BFDE)Linear IgA bullous dermatosis
Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosisParaneoplastic pemphigus
Phototoxic eruptionsAcute or subacute cutaneous lupus with epidermal necrosis (Rowell syndrome)
Table
Table 4. Distinguishing characteristics of SJS/TEN and EM.
Table 4. Distinguishing characteristics of SJS/TEN and EM.
SJS/TEN vs. EM
SJS/TENEM
Characteristic LesionsAtypical target lesions: macules with central clearing and 2 poorly demarcated componentsTypical target lesions: papules with a dark center and 3 well-demarcated, concentric components
Large sheets of painful desquamation in later lesions
DistributionTypically begins on the face and trunk with centrifugal spreadFace and acral skin, rare involvement of trunk
TriggersDrugs (see Table 2)Infection (most commonly HSV and M. pneumonia)
Mucosal InvolvementVery common—most cases have involvement of ≥2 mucosal surfacesRare—typically only one mucosal surface involved if present
RecurrenceRarely seen with removal and avoidance of causative drugFrequently seen
Histopathology
(Figure 2)		Early Stage
Basal layer liquefaction with vacuolar interface changes, scattered necrotic keratinocytes, and interface lymphocytes
Late Stage *
Subepidermal split with full-thickness epidermal necrosis
* Biopsy in the late stages of SJS/TEN may show comparatively little inflammation compared to EM.
Table
Table 5. SCORTEN and ABCD-10 Scoring Systems.
Table 5. SCORTEN and ABCD-10 Scoring Systems.
SCORTENABCD-10
ParameterWeightParameterWeight
Age ≥ 40 years1Age ≥ 50 years1
Malignancy—Yes1Serum Bicarbonate < 20 mmol/L1
BSA detached > 10%1Active Cancer—Yes2
Serum bicarbonate < 20 mmol/L1Dialysis prior to admission—Yes3
Serum urea nitrogen > 28 mg/dL1BSA Involvement > 10%1
Serum glucose > 252 mg/dL1
Tachycardia ≥ 120 bpm1
Maximum score possible7 8
Table
Table 6. Estimated mortality in patients with SJS/TEN.
Table 6. Estimated mortality in patients with SJS/TEN.
Estimated Mortality in Patients with SJS/TEN
SCORTEN ScoreEstimated Mortality (%)ABCD-10 ScoreEstimated Mortality (%)
0–13.202.3
212.115.4
335.3212.3
458.3325.5
>5>90445.7
567.4
>683.6
Table
Table 7. Potential Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of SJS/TEN
Table 7. Potential Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of SJS/TEN
Common Drug Triggers of SJS/TEN
Non-Specific for SJS/TENSpecific for SJS/TEN
○ Granulysin
○ CCL-27		○ Galectin-7
○ RIP3
Table
Table 8. Typical dosing regimens to treat SJS/TEN for selected drugs
Table 8. Typical dosing regimens to treat SJS/TEN for selected drugs
Dosing Regimen for SJS/TEN of Selected Drugs
IVIg3 g/kg, divided over 3 days [90]
TNF-alpha inhibitors- Infliximab: 5 mg/kg as a single dose [92]
- Etanercept: Single 50 mg dose [92]
Cyclosporine2.5–5 mg/kg/day for 7–10 days, followed by gradual taper [87,88]
CorticosteroidsPrednisone 0.5–1 mg/kg/day or pulse methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg/d for 3 days [81]
Table
Table 9. Relative cost of selected drugs at a single academic center
Table 9. Relative cost of selected drugs at a single academic center
Relative Cost of Selected Drugs **
IVIG$1932 for a treatment course *
Etanercept$1386 for a single 50 mg subcutaneous dose
Infliximab$4900 *
Cyclosporine~$336 for a 3-week course/taper at $16 per day
Prednisone<$20 for 2–3-week taper at $1 per day
* Assuming a 70 kg individual. ** Cost and access may vary by medical center.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Frantz, R.; Huang, S.; Are, A.; Motaparthi, K. Stevens–Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A Review of Diagnosis and Management. Medicina 2021, 57, 895. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57090895

AMA Style

Frantz R, Huang S, Are A, Motaparthi K. Stevens–Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A Review of Diagnosis and Management. Medicina. 2021; 57(9):895. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57090895

Chicago/Turabian Style

Frantz, Robert, Simo Huang, Abhirup Are, and Kiran Motaparthi. 2021. "Stevens–Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A Review of Diagnosis and Management" Medicina 57, no. 9: 895. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57090895

APA Style

Frantz, R., Huang, S., Are, A., & Motaparthi, K. (2021). Stevens–Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A Review of Diagnosis and Management. Medicina, 57(9), 895. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57090895

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop