4.2 Article

Variation of clinical manifestations according to culprit drugs in DRESS syndrome

Journal

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
Volume 28, Issue 6, Pages 840-848

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pds.4774

Keywords

biological variation; drug hypersensitivity syndrome; pharmacoepidemiology; symptom assessment

Funding

  1. Chonnam National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute [BCRI18023]
  2. Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome is a rare but serious condition that systematically damages various internal organs through T-cell-mediated immunological drug reactions. We aimed to investigate whether clinical manifestations of DRESS syndrome differ according to culprit drugs. Methods We retrospectively analyzed data from 123 patients with probable/definite DRESS syndrome based on the RegiSCAR criteria (January 2011 to July 2016). The data were obtained from the Korean Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reaction Registry. Causality was assessed using the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre criteria. The culprit drugs were categorized as allopurinol, carbamazepine, anti-tuberculosis drug, vancomycin, cephalosporins, dapsone, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Results Differences were observed among culprit drugs regarding the frequencies of hepatitis (P < 0.01), renal dysfunction (P < 0.0001), lymphadenopathy (P < 0.01), and atypical lymphocyte (P < 0.01). Latency period differed among culprit drugs (P < 0.0001), being shorter in vancomycin and cephalosporin. In terms of clinical severity, admission duration (P < 0.01) and treatment duration (P < 0.05) differed among culprit drugs, being longer in vancomycin and anti-tuberculosis drugs, respectively. Conclusions Based on the findings, clinical manifestations, including latency period and clinical severity, may differ according to culprit drugs in DRESS syndrome.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available