[Skip to Navigation]
Comment & Response
December 18, 2019

Implementation of Genetic Screening to Prevent Severe Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions Is Crucial—Rebuttal From the Devil’s Antagonist—Reply

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156(2):221-222. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3335

In Reply I very much thank Chan and Dodiuk-Gad for their comments, as the primary purpose of my editorial1 was to raise awareness of potential controversies regarding HLA screening and to stimulate conversation on this important topic. I agree completely that it is incumbent on us as physicians and researchers specializing in severe cutaneous adverse [drug] reactions (SCAR) to aim to prevent even a single case of Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis or other SCAR. It is a lofty goal but a critical one nonetheless. I also concur that there are specific examples in which HLA screening has been successfully implemented, and I hope that this can continue and be expanded on. However, I contend that we should not simply take these few specific examples of success and blindly apply them to every drug/HLA allele association that has been or will be identified in the literature. When considering the question of HLA testing, or any other laboratory test for that matter, I challenge readers to ask themselves these questions: What are the technical limitations of the test? What are the implications of a positive result or a negative result? What is its cost? Are there alternatives? In medicine, there are often gaps between what we should or hope to do and what we actually can do (owing to technical or safety limitations of testing or cost, for example). To the authors’ point, this gap has already narrowed tremendously in SCAR and hopefully will continue to close as technology advances and costs decrease.

Add or change institution
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words