Global Approach for Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions (GRASS) Survey

Authors:

• AlGassim, Moneerah
• Narayanasamy, Shanti
• Vogrin, Sara
• Khoudja, Rabea Youcef
• Netchiporouk, Elena
• Kern, Johannes S.
• Goh, Michelle S.Y.
• Ben-Shoshan, Moshe
• Holmes, Natasha E.
• Peter, Jonny
• Phillips, Elizabeth J.
• Trubiano, Jason A.
• Copaescu, Ana Maria

Details:

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, 2025-08-05

Article Link: Click here

Background Consensus guidelines outline the recommended management of delayed drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs), but clinical practices are largely expert-based and may vary significantly across populations and regions. This study evaluated the approach and management of health care specialists globally regarding DHRs, including severe cutaneous adverse reactions. Objective To assess the current practices, knowledge, and availability of allergy testing for DHRs, including severe cutaneous adverse reactions, among relevant health care professionals globally. Methods The Global AppRoAch for Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions Survey study is a prospective, web-based survey conducted using the Research Electronic Data Capture platform. The 10- to 15-minute survey was directed to 14 allergy/immunology and dermatology associations through international mailing lists across 48 countries. Results Among the 8561 members contacted, answers from 130 health care providers practicing in all 6 continents were analyzed. Most respondents identified as White (88 of 130 [68%]) and female (79 of 130 [61%]), representing a range of age groups and clinical expertise. Most practiced in dermatology (69 of 130 [53%]), followed by allergy/immunology (46 of 130 [35.4%]), and were based in an urban setting (127 of 130 [98%]). Among the 45 respondents (34.6%) who managed severe cutaneous adverse reactions, 27 (60%) had access to multidisciplinary care. Practices varied widely by clinical phenotype; for example, for maculopapular exanthema, 63 respondents indicated treating through the reaction (63 of 130 [49%]), whereas 16 (16 of 130 [12%]) offered desensitization. Under patient education and follow-up, only 60 (60 of 130 [46.2%]) participants organized a follow-up with the implicated specialist. Conclusions Significant variability in the management of DHRs was observed among the respondents. The results highlight the need for evidence-based protocols to standardize guidelines for managing DHRs.