4.6 Article

Vancomycin-associated drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.02.002

关键词

DIHS; DRESS; drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms; drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome; renal dysfunction; vancomycin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although hypersensitivity reactions are well characterized for certain medications, vancomycin-associated drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS), or drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), has yet to be defined. Objective: To better define the clinical phenotype of vancomycin-associated DIHS. Methods: A retrospective case series was conducted over an 8-year period at a single, academic institution. A total of 29 cases of DIHS/DRESS were identified, of which 4 were attributed to vancomycin. A literature review was performed; it identified 28 additional cases of vancomycin-induced DIHS. Vancomycin-associated acute interstitial nephritis was also reviewed to detect additional, previously uncharacterized cases of systemic hypersensitivity. The review yielded 11 additional cases. Results: In this literature review and retrospective series, the incidence of renal dysfunction among vancomycin-induced cases (75% and 68% of cases in the series and literature, respectively) was notably higher than the overall reported incidence in DIHS (10%-40%). The degree of renal impairment was also significantly increased in the retrospective series (a median 4.98-fold change in baseline creatinine level vs a 2.25-fold increase in non-vancomycin-associated cases [P = .011]). Limitations: The principal limitation of this study is the small sample size. Other notable limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and absence of confirmatory renal biopsies. Conclusion: Although the current understanding of DIHS/DRESS is imperfect, our findings suggest that vancomycin-induced cases present with a unique phenotype characterized by a higher burden of renal involvement.

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

4.6
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