4.5 Article

Antituberculosis Drug-Associated DRESS: A Case Series

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2017.11.021

关键词

Antituberculosis drugs; Drug allergy; DRESS; Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Although antituberculosis drug-associated drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is rarely reported, its diagnosis should not be dismissed. Its management implies an early withdrawal of suspected drugs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of antituberculosis drug-associated DRESS and to identify the most likely involved drugs. METHODS: We searched for potential cases of DRESS with rifampicin, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol reported from January 1, 2005, to July 30, 2015, in the French pharmacovigilance database. A literature review was also performed. RESULTS: Sixty-seven cases of antituberculosis drug-associated DRESS were analyzed (40 women and 27 men, median age of 61 years). Liver and kidneys were the most frequently involved organs. Two patients died from DRESS. Skin tests were performed in 11 patients and were positive in 8 cases. Discrepancies between epicutaneous tests and reintroduction of the culprit drugs were observed for 2 patients with a premature reintroduction of antituberculosis drugs in 1 case. Antituberculosis drugs were the only suspects in 20 cases. As for the literature data, rifampicin was the most suspected drug because of its larger indications, but in case of tuberculosis infections, isoniazid was the most suspected drug. CONCLUSIONS: We described the largest case series of first-line antituberculosis drug-associated DRESS in the literature. All antituberculosis drugs pose a risk of DRESS. An early withdrawal of the culprit drugs is essential. A drug allergy evaluation must be performed to optimize the second-line treatment of tuberculosis infection. (C) 2017 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology

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

4.5
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