4.0 Article

DRESS Syndrome Caused by Cross-reactivity Between Vancomycin and Subsequent Teicoplanin Administration: A Case Report

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CASE REPORTS
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 625-631

出版社

INT SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, INC
DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.899149

关键词

Drug Hypersensitivity Syndrome; Lung Diseases; Interstitial; Teicoplanin; Vancomycin

资金

  1. Tokushukai Hospital, Japan [150178PK]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25460645] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Adverse events of drug therapy Background: Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome is a potentially life-threatening syndrome comprising severe skin eruption, fever, eosinophilia, lymphadenopathy, and involvement of internal organs. Here, we describe a case of DRESS syndrome caused by cross-reactivity between vancomycin and subsequent teicoplanin administration. Case Report: A 79-year-old male was admitted to our hospital for the treatment of injuries incurred in a traffic accident. Eosinophilia and lung dysfunction appeared after vancomycin administration. These symptoms were improved temporarily by withdrawal of vancomycin and administration of corticosteroid, but exacerbated by subsequent teicoplanin administration. These symptoms disappeared after discontinuation of teicoplanin. Based on comprehensive assessment of the overall clinical course, we judged that DRESS syndrome was induced by cross-reactivity between vancomycin and subsequent teicoplanin administration. Using the European Registry of Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions (RegiSCAR) scoring system, we categorized DRESS syndrome related to vancomycin and teicoplanin as probable. We describe, for the first time, DRESS syndrome (defined using the RegiSCAR scoring system) caused by cross-reactivity between vancomycin and subsequent teicoplanin administration. Conclusions: Clinicians should be aware that DRESS syndrome can be induced by cross-reactivity between vancomycin and teicoplanin.

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

4.0
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