MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416566986 · doi:10.1002/jvc2.70240

Paediatric Acute Generalised and Localised Exanthematous Pustulosis: A Systematic Review

2025· article· en· W4416566986 on OpenAlexaffabout
Miranda K. Branyiczky, Megan Lowe, Eric McMullen, Shireen Dumont, Narachai Julanon, Vincent Piguet, Cathryn Sibbald

Bibliographic record

VenueJEADV Clinical Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug-Induced Adverse Reactions
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster UniversityQueen's UniversityWomen's College HospitalSickKids FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcute generalized exanthematous pustulosisRashRespiratory tract infectionsCohortAntibioticsCohort studyMEDLINEDrug

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute generalised exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) is a severe pustular cutaneous eruption often accompanied by fever and associated with drug triggers or infections. The pathogenesis of AGEP appears to be T-cell-mediated. Many drug-specific T-cells release large amounts of interleukin-8, a potent neutrophil chemoattractant that promotes neutrophil survival and recruitment to the skin, forming intraepidermal pustules [1]. The median age of presentation is approximately 60 years; however, cases are reported in children [1]. Paediatric acute localised exanthematous pustulosis (ALEP) has occurred with infections and vaccines [2]. This study aims to evaluate the characteristics, causes, clinical presentations and treatment outcomes in paediatric cases of AGEP and ALEP. MEDLINE and Embase were searched (inception to January 2025) with the terms ‘AGEP,’ ‘ALEP’ and ‘pediatric’. This review was registered in PROSPERO (ID: 1016727) per PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Full-length English articles reporting AGEP/ALEP in patients < 18 years old were included. Of 268 records identified, 57 articles, consisting of 46 case reports, seven case series and four cohort studies were included (Figure 1). We identified 84 paediatric patients with a mean age of 8.1 years (range: 0–17) and male predominance (61.7%, n = 50/81; Table 1). Most cases were AGEP (81/84, 96.4%) with rare cases of ALEP (3/84, 3.6%). Identified triggers were predominantly drugs (73.8%, n = 62/84) and infection (23.8%, n = 20/84), with upper respiratory tract infections being most common. Among drug-related cases, antibiotics (56.5%, n = 35/62; penicillins [45.7%, n = 16/35], cephalosporins [22.8%, n = 8/35] and sulphonamides [11.4%, n = 4/35]), antifungals (9.7%, n = 6/62) and acetaminophen (8.1%, n = 5/62) were the main therapies implicated in AGEP, while ALEP was triggered by antibiotics and lamotrigine. Mean latency to AGEP and ALEP onset was 5.5 days (range: hours to 42 days) and 2.3 days (range: 2–4 days), respectively. Biopsy confirmed diagnoses in 65.5% of patients (n = 55/84). Laboratory findings frequently included leukocytosis with neutrophilia, elevated CRP, and normal kidney and liver tests. Abnormal liver enzymes were reported in five cases. A EuroSCAR AGEP validation score was reported in 42.9% (n = 36/84) of cases, with a mean of 9.4 (range: 5–12). In drug-induced cases, the mean Naranjo score was 7.3 (range: 4–11), suggesting a probable association with culprit drugs. Drug discontinuation, when feasible, was the primary management in cases of drug-related AGEP/ALEP (74.2%, n = 46/62). Treatments included topical steroids (48.8%, n = 41/84), systemic steroids (28.6%, n = 24/84), antihistamines (33.3%, n = 28/84) and drug withdrawal alone (4.8%, n = 4/84). Nearly all cases achieved complete resolution (92.9%, n = 78/84) within a mean duration of 8.9 days, though 10.7% (n = 9/84) noted residual desquamation or hyperpigmentation. Patients treated with systemic steroids indeed had a longer mean disease duration compared to those treated with topical steroids (12.0 versus 9.2 days), however these patients also had more severe presenting disease characteristics. Two patients had recurrent AGEP after re-exposure, recovering completely, while one progressed to a TEN-like presentation treated with intravenous immunoglobulin; the outcome was unreported. Specific allergological workup for the suspected culprit drug was conducted in select patients, yielding positive results in 72.7% (n = 8/11) of cases with patch test, 50% (n = 1/2) with skin prick test and 100% (n = 2/2) with lymphocyte transformation test. Overall, paediatric AGEP/ALEP presents similarly to that of adults with acute-onset sterile, non-follicular pustules, disseminated lesions and rare mucosal involvement [3]. While visceral involvement occurs in up to 17% of adult AGEP, few cases in this review reported liver involvement, and none reported other organ impacts, likely due to fewer chronic comorbidities in children [4]. Regardless, a basic systemic workup is recommended to detect rare organ involvement. Following recovery, confirmatory allergological workup may be considered, with varying specificity demonstrated in this cohort. Additionally, AGEP/ALEP post-infection may be more common in children and should be considered in cases without a clear drug culprit [3]. Antibiotics were the most common drug cause of paediatric AGEP, led by penicillins, whereas sulphonamide and cephalosporins are more frequent culprits in adult populations [5]. Paediatric-specific considerations include the lack of EuroSCAR score validation in children and ongoing debate regarding systemic corticosteroids in treatment [6]. Limitations include the exclusion of non-English articles and potential reporting bias. Further research into AGEP pathophysiology could improve diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, potentially reducing unnecessary invasive procedures in paediatric populations. Miranda K. Branyiczky: conceptualisation (lead), methodology (lead), investigation (lead), formal analysis (lead), writing – original draft (lead), writing – review and editing (equal). Megan Lowe: investigation (supporting), formal analysis (supporting), writing – review and editing (equal). Eric McMullen: formal analysis (supporting), writing – review and editing (equal), project administration (lead). Shireen Dumont: writing – review and editing (equal). Narachai Julanon: visualisation (lead), writing – review and editing (equal). Vincent Piguet: supervision (supporting), methodology (supporting), writing – review and editing (equal). Cathryn Sibbald: supervision (lead), methodology (supporting), writing – review and editing (equal). The authors have nothing to report. Dr Piguet has received honoraria or fees for consulting and/or speaking for AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer and has received departmental support for Cardiff University from AbbVie, Almirall, Alliance, Beiersdorf UK Ltd, Biotest, Celgene, Dermal, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Genus Pharma, Globe Micro, Janssen-Celag, La Roche-Posay, L'Oreal, LEO Pharma, Meda, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sinclair Pharma, Spirit, Stiefel, Samumed, Thornton Ross, TyPham and UCB and for University of Toronto from Sanofi. Dr Sibbald has received honoraria for speaking for AbbVie, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, received compensation for advisory board participation from Sanofi, Pfizer, Incyte and Eli Lily and received grant funding from Pfizer International. M.K.B., M.L., E.M., S.D. and N.J. have no conflicts of interest to declare. The data that support the findings of this study are available within the article.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.402 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJEADV Clinical PracticeSame topicDrug-Induced Adverse ReactionsFrench-language works237,207