Erythema Multiforme, Stevens–Johnson Syndrome, and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis

Published on 05/03/2015 by admin

Filed under Dermatology

Last modified 22/04/2025

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 5363 times

16

Erythema Multiforme, Stevens–Johnson Syndrome, and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis

Erythema Multiforme

Self-limited, but potentially recurrent, disease.

Two forms: erythema multiforme (EM) major and EM minor (Table 16.1).

Both forms have an abrupt onset of papular ‘target’ lesions that favor acrofacial sites.

Two types of target lesions: (1) typical targets, with at least three different zones; (2) atypical papular targets, with only two different zones and/or a poorly defined border (Fig. 16.1).

EM minor: typical > atypical papular target lesions, little or no mucosal involvement, and no systemic symptoms.

EM major: typical > atypical papular target lesions, moderate to severe mucosal involvement, and some systemic symptoms (fever, asthenia, arthralgia).

Preceding HSV infection is most common precipitating factor; less often other preceding infections, in particular Mycoplasma pneumoniae (Table 16.2; Fig. 16.2); rarely drug exposure.

Diagnosis based on clinicopathologic correlation and not solely histopathologic findings.

EM is a distinct disorder from Stevens–Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) (see Table 16.1).

EM does not progress to TEN.

DDx: giant urticaria (Fig. 16.3; Table 16.3), morbilliform drug reaction (Fig. 16.4), multiple fixed drug eruption (FDE), acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy, Kawasaki disease, small vessel vasculitis, Rowell’s syndrome, GVHD, polymorphic light eruption (PMLE).

Rx mild disease: symptomatic and supportive care, treat underlying infection if detected, ophthalmology consultation if ocular involvement.

Rx recurrent disease: oral antiviral drug as prophylaxis for HSV infections, administered for at least 6 months (acyclovir 10 mg/kg/day, valacyclovir 500–1000 mg/day, or famciclovir 250 mg BID).

Rx severe recurrent disease or failure to respond to prophylactic (anti-HSV) treatment: double the antiviral dose and if this fails, then consider referral to a dermatologist for possible immunosuppressive treatment.

Stevens–Johnson Syndrome (SJS) and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN)

SJS and TEN are considered the same disease, but along a clinical spectrum of severity and distinct from EM (see Table 16.1).

Most likely etiology for both is an adverse reaction to a medication.

Most common culprit drugs (Table 16.4): NSAIDs, antibiotics (in particular, sulfonamides and penicillins), anticonvulsants, and allopurinol.

Table 16.4

Medications most frequently associated with Stevens–Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN).

For a complete updated list of drugs associated with SJS and TEN, refer to Litt JZ, 2010. Litt’s Drug Eruptions and Reactions Manual, 16th ed. London: Informa Healthcare.

Allopurinol

Aminopenicillins

Amithiozone (thioacetazone)*,

Antiretroviral drugs

Barbiturates

Carbamazepine

Chlormezanone*,

Phenytoin anticonvulsants

Lamotrigine

Phenylbutazone*,§

Piroxicam

Sulfadiazine*,

Sulfadoxine

Sulfasalazine

Trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole

* Not available in the United States.

 Antibacterial.

 Sedative/hypnotic.

§ Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

In some patients there may be an underlying genetic predisposition, e.g.

Allopurinol-induced SJS/TEN associated with HLA-B*58:01 allele.

Carbamazepine-induced SJS associated with HLA-B*15:02 in Asian populations.

Carbamazepine-induced SJS associated with HLA-A*31:01 allele in Europeans.

HLA screening in these at-risk populations prior to beginning these medications has been shown to reduce SJS–TEN risk and has opened the door for the future identification of additional genetic risks.

Mucocutaneous tenderness, erythema, and varying degrees of epidermal detachment are characteristic features.

SJS is characterized by <10% body surface area (BSA) epidermal detachment, SJS–TEN overlap by 10–30% BSA epidermal detachment, and TEN by >30% BSA epidermal detachment (Fig. 16.5).

Onset usually 7–21 days after starting culprit medication.

Symptoms that typically precede skin findings by 1–3 days: prodromal flu-like syndrome, sore throat, fever, painful skin.

Tender cutaneous lesions most prominent on trunk, followed by extension to face, neck, proximal extremities.

Painful erythema and erosions of buccal, ocular, and genital mucosa in >90% of patients (Fig. 16.6).

Morphologic progression of skin lesions: dusky red or purpuric macules (macular atypical targets) of various sizes and shapes that begin to coalesce (Fig. 16.7); the gray-colored centers become wrinkled and begin to slough due to the development of flaccid bullae and poor attachment of the necrotic epidermis (likened to wet cigarette paper) (Fig. 16.8); the result is raw, denuded, bright red dermis (scalding) (Fig. 16.9).

Additional systemic findings: fever, lymphadenopathy, hepatitis, cytopenias, erosions of epithelium in the gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts.

Unpredictable course; worse prognosis in the elderly and with increasing BSA involvement (Table 16.5).

Mortality rate in SJS is 1–5% and in TEN, 25–35%.

Most important factor in improving outcome is withdrawal of culprit medication.

Epidermal detachment is due to extensive keratinocyte death via apoptosis, which is mediated by interaction of the death receptor-ligand pair Fas–Fas ligand; perforin, granzyme B, and granulysin also play a role.

DDx: EM, drug-induced linear IgA bullous dermatosis (LABD), acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), severe acute GVHD, Rowell’s syndrome, paraneoplastic pemphigus; in children can consider staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome (SSSS) and Kawasaki disease.

Rx: stop the culprit medication, rapid initiation of supportive care, specific therapy (no evidence-based treatment) (Fig. 16.10).

Specific therapies that have the potential to block keratinocyte apoptosis, such as IVIg, may provide added benefit over supportive care (Fig. 16.11).

For further information see Ch. 20. From Dermatology, Third Edition.