4.7 Article

High Frequency of HLA B62 in Fulminant Type 1 Diabetes with the Drug-Induced Hypersensitivity Syndrome

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 97, 期 12, 页码 E2277-E2281

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2012-2054

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japan Diabetes Society
  2. Japanese Dermatological Association
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24591321, 24591362] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Fulminant type 1 diabetes (FT1D) is a subtype of type 1 diabetes characterized by an extremely abrupt onset. FT1D cases associated with the drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS) have recently been reported. Objective: The clinical characteristics of FT1D associated with DIHS were investigated in this study. Methods: Case reports of FT1D associated with DIHS in Japanese subjects were collected and analyzed by means of a questionnaire to the authors. A nationwide questionnaire survey was administered to dermatology specialists, concerning the frequency of FT1D associated with DIHS. Results: In 15 case reports, the mean age at onset of FT1D was 53.4 yr and the mean time for its development from the onset of DIHS was 39.9 d. A higher frequency of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) B62, but not of HLA DR was found in FT1D with DIHS than that for cases without DIHS (P < 0.001). The reactivation of herpes virus 6 and cytomegalovirus was detected in 11 and four cases, respectively. Among 746 patients with DIHS in the nationwide survey, four developed FT1D during a 3-yr period. The frequency of FT1D in DIHS (0.54%) was much higher than that in the general Japanese population (0.010%). Conclusions: The clinical characteristics of FT1D with DIHS were similar to those without DIHS except for the high frequency of HLA B62, which may be involved in the pathogenesis of FT1D with DIHS. Because the frequency was much higher than that in the general Japanese population, FT1D should be kept in mind when DIHS develops. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 97: E2277-E2281, 2012)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据