Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN), also known as Lyell’s Syndrome, is a rare dermatological condition of great clinical severity
[1,2,3][1][2][3]. It was described for the first time in 1956 by Alan Lyell
[4], after whom it was named, and in most cases, it derives from the exposure to certain drugs, accounting for 1% of all hospitalizations for adverse drug reactions
[1]. Regarding its clinical features, TEN is characterized by generalized mucocutaneous necrolysis, with bullous lesions and epidermal detachment affecting more than 30% of total body surface area (TBSA)
[3,5,6][3][5][6]. This syndrome is rare, with an annual incidence of 1–2 cases per 1,000,000 people
[1]. Its mortality is rather high, varying from 25% to 35%
[5] but reaching 50–70%
[2] depending on sources. TEN’s pathophysiology is not fully understood, and there are several theories suggesting autoimmune mechanisms that may lead to keratinocyte apoptosis and necrosis. However, it is known that this immune response is cell-mediated, namely, by T cells
[1,2,6,7][1][2][6][7]. A few theories propose cellular apoptosis mechanisms to be involved, especially those of Tumour Necrosis Factor (TNF), Fas-FasL and granzymes such as granulysin
[1,6,7,8][1][6][7][8]. In the literature, it is consensual that, in order to achieve the best therapeutic conditions and to ensure the maximum survival rates, patients should be preferentially admitted and treated in Burns Units. As of writing this
aentr
ticley, and despite several new treatment modalities having been studied and proposed, particularly immunomodulation, the only treatment for which its efficacy has been proven and that is widely used is the one built on general support care. However, studies on these new treatments need larger and more representative populations in order to be statistically significant
[1,3,7,9,10,11][1][3][7][9][10][11]. TEN is an important study subject, with considerable potential for new discoveries. With this
aentr
ticley, the authors mean to review and summarize information and scientific evidence available. During the study, not only converging points amongst several authors were noted but many interesting targets for research were also referred regarding its pathophysiology and its therapeutic approach. There are still some controversies and disagreements that need better clarification in order to optimize patients’ management and outcome.
2. Epidemiology
TEN has a global annual incidence of 1–2 cases per 1,000,000 people. Its mean mortality ranges from 25% to 35%, possibly reaching 50–75% if it is not correctly managed
[1,2,5,6][1][2][5][6]. This syndrome represents about 1% of all hospitalizations for adverse drug effects
[1]. TEN has a 1.000-times-higher incidence in HIV-positive individuals, reaching a global annual incidence of 1 case per 1.000 people in these patients
[3]. Although it is not restricted to any specific age group, it is more common at age extremes: before 5 years and after 64 years of age. It also affects more women than men in a proportion of 2:1 or even 3:1
[1].
3. Aetiology
In most cases (80–85%), the origin of TEN is tethered to an idiosyncratic reaction to a dose-independent exposure to certain pharmacological groups
[1,2,6][1][2][6], but it is important to note that there is a small percentage of patients that develop TEN by unknown non-pharmacological mechanisms
[12]. Over 220 drugs have been linked to TEN, with higher or lower frequencies
[3,5][3][5]. As there is no trustworthy test that conclusively proves a specific drug’s causality, it is safer to speak only of a suspect or probable drug as the causal agent
[3]. To evaluate the risk of occurrence of TEN, an Algorithm of Drug Causality in Epidermal Necrolysis (ALDEN) was created, for which its use has been validated as a reference tool
[6] (
Table 1).
Table 1.
Algorithm of Drug Causality in Epidermal Necrolysis (ALDEN) [12].
Criteria |
Value |
Rules of Application |
Latency between drug administration and onset of symptoms (index day) |
Suggestive |
+3 |
From 5 to 28 days. |
Compatible |
+2 |
From 29 to 56 days. |
Probable |
+1 |
From 1 to 4 days. |
Improbable |
−1 |
More than 56 days. |
Excluded |
−3 |
Drug administered on index day. |
NOTE: If there is a previous reaction to the same drug, it is considered “suggestive +3” from 1 to 4 days and “probable +1” from 5 to 56 days. |
Probability that the drug was present in the patient’s system |
Definitive |
+0 |
Drug administered until index day or stopped less than 5 elimination half-lives before index day. |
Doubtful |
−1 |
Drug stopped more than 5 elimination half-lives before index day, with abnormal renal and/or hepatic functions or suspected pharmacological interactions. |
Excluded |
−3 |
Drug stopped more than 5 elimination half-lives before index day, with normal renal and hepatic functions and no pharmacological interactions. |
Prechallenge or rechallenge |
Positive specifically for disease and drug |
+4 |
Occurrence of SJS/TEN 1 after the use of the same drug. |
Positive specifically either for disease or drug |
+2 |
Occurrence of SJS/TEN after the use of a similar drug or another adverse reaction to the same drug. |
Positive non-specifically |
+1 |
Occurrence of another adverse drug reaction to a similar drug. |
Unknown/not performed |
+0 |
No knowledge of previous exposure to the drug. |
Negative |
−2 |
Previous exposure to the drug without any adverse reaction of any kind. |
Dechallenge |
Neutral |
+0 |
Drug stopped or unknown. |
Negative |
−2 |
Drug not stopped without worsening of clinical condition. |
Drug notoriety |
Strongly associated |
+3 |
High risk drug. |
Associated |
+2 |
Lower but proven risk drug. |
Suspect |
+1 |
Ambiguous epidemiology; drug “under surveillance”. |
Unknown |
+0 |
All other drugs, including new ones. |
Not suspect |
−1 |
No evidence of association. |
INTERMEDIATE SCORE = −11 to +10 |
Sum of all previous criteria. |
Other possible aetiologies for the symptoms? |
Possible |
−1 |
List all other administered drugs according to their intermediate score and if at least one > 3. |