4.7 Article

Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions Related to Systemic Antibiotics

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 58, 期 10, 页码 1377-1385

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciu126

关键词

SCARs; systemic antibiotics

资金

  1. National Science Council, Taiwan [98-2320-B-010-002-MY3, 98-2314-B-182A-027-MY3, NSC 101-2320-B-010-072-MY3, NSC 101-2321-B-010-027, NSC101-2628-B-182-001-MY3, NSC101-2321-B-182-008]
  2. Taiwan Ministry of Education (Aim for the Top University Plan, National Yang-Ming University)
  3. Chang Gung Memorial Hospital [OMRPG2C0011 CMRPG 290051-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Systemic antibiotics are a major cause of severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs). The selection of alternative antibiotics and management for SCARs patients with underlying infections can be challenging. Methods. We retrospectively analyzed 74 cases of SCARs, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), related to use of systemic antibiotics in Taiwan from January 2006 to January 2012. We analyzed the causative antibiotics, clinical features, organ involvements, and mortality. We also assessed patient tolerability to alternative antibiotics after the development of antibiotic-related SCARs. Results. The most common causes of SCARs were penicillins and cephalosporins for SJS/TEN and AGEP; glycopeptides for DRESS. Fatality was more frequent in the SJS/TEN group. In patients with SJS/TEN, higher mortality was associated with old age and underlying sepsis before the development of SCARs. The majority of patients with penicillin-or cephalosporin-related SCARs were able to tolerate quinolones, glycopeptides, and carbapenems. Conclusions. Complicated underlying conditions and infections may increase mortality in patients with antibiotic-related SCARs. The selection of structurally different alternative drugs is important to avoid recurrence.

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