pathway and indirectly via a decrease in SCF secretion due to the inhibition of fibroblast proliferation. Interestingly, the opposite effects of imatinib mesilate on hair and epidermal pigmentation also suggest target-dependent effects on interfollicular vs. undifferentiated hair follicle melanocytes. As the latter are not pigmented and serve as precursors for hair bulb melanocytes which pigment the hair shaft, the increased motility of melanocytes when treated with imatinib mesilate could have a net depigmenting effect in the epidermis if normal melanocytes are not locally replaced and a pigmenting effect if precursor depigmented melanocytes are able to migrate, differentiate and eventually repigment hair bulbs and shafts.

The present study was made to determine the value of drug skin tests in patients with cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs) due to a synergistin (pristinamycin) and to determine the frequency of cross-reactions between synergistins. 29 patients were referred during the onset of the CADR due to pristinamycin: 18 with maculopapular rash, 9 erythrodermas, 1 angioedema and 1 Stevens-Johnson syndrome. They all had patch tests with pristinamycin and, in most cases, with other synergistins [virginiamycin and dalfopristin-quinupristin (DQ)], prick tests (10 cases) and intradermal tests (IDT) (5 cases). Skin tests with synergistins were positive in 27 cases, patch tests with pristinamycin in 20/29 cases (69%), prick tests with pristinamycin in 3/9 cases on immediate (1 case) or on delayed (2 cases) readings, and IDT with DQ in 4/5 cases. Cross-reactions between synergistins occurred in 9/22 with virginiamycin and in 7/8 cases with DQ. Skin tests with synergistins are useful in investigating CADR due to pristinamycin. Synergistins are composed of 2 chains (1 depsipeptide and 1 macrocyclic lactone) with many structural analogies between all synergistins. According to the chemical structures and our results, it seems advisable to avoid all synergistins in patients with CADR due to pristinamycin.

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by acyclovir is rare. We report the 5th case of systemic acyclovir reaction subsequent to acyclovir contact dermatitis, with investigations made to determine an alternative antiviral treatment. A 23-year-old woman, after dermatitis while using Zovirax cream, went on to develop urticaria after oral acyclovir. Patch tests were performed with the components of Zovirax cream (acyclovir, propylene glycol and sodium lauryl sulfate) and with other antiviral drugs. Patch tests were positive to Zovirax cream, acyclovir, valacyclovir and propylene glycol. Patch and prick tests with famciclovir were negative, but its oral administration caused an itchy erythematous dermatitis on the trunk and extremities. Our patient developed a systemic acyclovir reaction subsequent to acyclovir allergic contact dermatitis, with cross-reactions to valacyclovir and famciclovir. Their common chemical structure is the 2-aminopurine nucleus. It is probably this part of the molecule that provokes both contact allergy and systemic reactions. The only antiviral drugs not having this core are foscarnet and cidofovir, and these could therefore be alternatives.

No abstract