-
Digestion 2023Two major types of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA)-containing preparations, namely, mesalazine/5-ASA and sulfasalazine (SASP), are currently used as first-line therapy for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Two major types of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA)-containing preparations, namely, mesalazine/5-ASA and sulfasalazine (SASP), are currently used as first-line therapy for ulcerative colitis. Recent reports show that optimization of 5-ASA therapy is beneficial for both patient outcomes and healthcare costs. Although 5-ASA and SASP have good efficacy and safety profiles, clinicians occasionally encounter patients who develop 5-ASA intolerance.
SUMMARY
The most common symptoms of acute 5-ASA intolerance syndrome are exacerbation of diarrhea, fever, and abdominal pain. Patients who discontinue 5-ASA therapy because of intolerance have a higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes, such as hospital admission, colectomy, need for advanced therapies, and loss of response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologics. When patients develop symptoms of 5-ASA intolerance, the clinician should consider changing the type of 5-ASA preparation. Recent genome-wide association studies and meta-analyses have shown that 5-ASA allergy is associated with certain single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Although there are no modalities or biomarkers for diagnosing 5-ASA intolerance, the drug-induced lymphocyte stimulation test can be used to assist in the diagnosis of acute 5-ASA intolerance syndrome with high specificity and low sensitivity. This review presents a general overview of 5-ASA and SASP in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease and discusses the latest insights into 5-ASA intolerance.
KEY MESSAGES
5-ASA is used as first-line therapy for ulcerative colitis. Optimization of 5-ASA may be beneficial for patient outcomes and healthcare systems. Acute 5-ASA intolerance syndrome is characterized by diarrhea, fever, and abdominal pain. Periodic renal function monitoring is recommended for patients receiving 5-ASA.
Topics: Humans; Mesalamine; Colitis, Ulcerative; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Genome-Wide Association Study; Remission Induction; Administration, Oral; Sulfasalazine; Fever; Abdominal Pain
PubMed: 36366816
DOI: 10.1159/000527452 -
Theranostics 2022: Intracellular bacterial survival is a major factor causing chronic or recurrent infection, leading to the failure of both host defense and/or antibiotic treatment....
: Intracellular bacterial survival is a major factor causing chronic or recurrent infection, leading to the failure of both host defense and/or antibiotic treatment. However, the elimination of intracellular bacteria is challenging as they are protected from antibiotics and host immune attack. Recent studies have indicated that iron helps macrophages against intracellular bacteria, contradictory to traditional "nutritional immunity", in which iron is considered a key nutrient for bacterial survival in host cells. However, how iron facilitates intracellular bacterial death has not been fully clarified. In this study, we found that ferroptotic stress can help macrophages suppress intracellular bacteria by reversing the importation of ferrous iron into bacterial vacuoles via ferroportin and thereby inducing ferroptosis-like bacterial death. : A macrophage model of bacterial invasion was established to monitor dynamic changes in ferroptotic hallmarks, including ferrous iron and lipid peroxidation. Ferroptosis inducers and inhibitors were added to the model to evaluate the relationship between ferroptotic stress and intracellular bacterial survival. We then determined the spatiotemporal distributions of ferroportin, ferrous iron, and lipid peroxidation in macrophages and intracellular bacteria. A bacterial infection mouse model was established to evaluate the therapeutic effects of drugs that regulate ferroptotic stress. : Ferrous iron and lipid peroxidation increased sharply in the early stage of bacterial infection in the macrophages, then decreased to normal levels in the late stage of infection. The addition of ferroptosis inducers (ras-selective lethal small molecule 3, sulfasalazine, and acetaminophen) in macrophages promoted intracellular bacterial suppression. Further studies revealed that ferrous iron could be delivered to the intracellular bacterial compartment via inward ferroportin transportation, where ferrous iron induced ferroptosis-like death of bacteria. In addition, ferroptotic stress declined to normal levels in the late stage of infection by regulating iron-related pathways in the macrophages. Importantly, we found that enhancing ferroptotic stress with a ferroptosis inducer (sulfasalazine) successfully suppressed bacteria in the mouse infection models. : Our study suggests that the spatiotemporal response to ferroptosis stress is an efficient pathway for macrophage defense against bacterial invasion, and targeting ferroptosis may achieve therapeutic targets for infectious diseases challenged by intracellular pathogens.
Topics: Animals; Cell Death; Ferroptosis; Iron; Macrophages; Mice; Sulfasalazine
PubMed: 35265210
DOI: 10.7150/thno.66663 -
Cell Death and Differentiation Apr 2021Ferroptosis, a form of iron-dependent cell death driven by cellular metabolism and iron-dependent lipid peroxidation, has been implicated as a tumor-suppressor function...
Ferroptosis, a form of iron-dependent cell death driven by cellular metabolism and iron-dependent lipid peroxidation, has been implicated as a tumor-suppressor function for cancer therapy. Recent advance revealed that the sensitivity to ferroptosis is tightly linked to numerous biological processes, including metabolism of amino acid and the biosynthesis of glutathione. Here, by using a high-throughput CRISPR/Cas9-based genetic screen in HepG2 hepatocellular carcinoma cells to search for metabolic proteins inhibiting ferroptosis, we identified a branched-chain amino acid aminotransferase 2 (BCAT2) as a novel suppressor of ferroptosis. Mechanistically, ferroptosis inducers (erastin, sorafenib, and sulfasalazine) activated AMPK/SREBP1 signaling pathway through iron-dependent ferritinophagy, which in turn inhibited BCAT2 transcription. We further confirmed that BCAT2 as the key enzyme mediating the metabolism of sulfur amino acid, regulated intracellular glutamate level, whose activation by ectopic expression specifically antagonize system Xc inhibition and protected liver and pancreatic cancer cells from ferroptosis in vitro and in vivo. On the contrary, direct inhibition of BCAT2 by RNA interference, or indirect inhibition by blocking system Xc activity, triggers ferroptosis. Finally, our results demonstrate the synergistic effect of sorafenib and sulfasalazine in downregulating BCAT2 expression and dictating ferroptotic death, where BCAT2 can also be used to predict the responsiveness of cancer cells to ferroptosis-inducing therapies. Collectively, these findings identify a novel role of BCAT2 in ferroptosis, suggesting a potential therapeutic strategy for overcoming sorafenib resistance.
Topics: AMP-Activated Protein Kinases; Animals; CRISPR-Cas Systems; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Female; Ferroptosis; Hep G2 Cells; Humans; Iron; Lipid Peroxidation; Liver Neoplasms; Mice; Mice, Inbred C57BL; Minor Histocompatibility Antigens; Pregnancy Proteins; Signal Transduction; Sorafenib; Transaminases; Xenograft Model Antitumor Assays
PubMed: 33097833
DOI: 10.1038/s41418-020-00644-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016Randomized trials investigating the efficacy of aminosalicylates for the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease have yielded conflicting results. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Randomized trials investigating the efficacy of aminosalicylates for the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease have yielded conflicting results. A systematic review was conducted to critically examine current available data on the efficacy of sulfasalazine and mesalamine for inducing remission or clinical response in these patients.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of aminosalicylates compared to placebo, corticosteroids, and other aminosalicylates (alone or in combination with corticosteroids) for the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Library from inception to June 2015 to identify relevant studies. There were no language restrictions. We also searched reference lists from potentially relevant papers and review articles, as well as proceedings from annual meetings (1991-2015) of the American Gastroenterological Association and American College of Gastroenterology.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of sulfasalazine or mesalamine in the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease compared to placebo, corticosteroids, and other aminosalicylates (alone or in combination with corticosteroids) were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality was independently performed by the investigators and any disagreement was resolved by discussion and consensus. We assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. The primary outcome measure was a well defined clinical endpoint of induction of remission or response to treatment. Secondary outcomes included mean Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) scores, adverse events, serious adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events. For dichotomous outcomes we calculated the pooled risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model. For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI using a random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses based on a fixed-effect model and duration of therapy were conducted where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty studies (2367 patients) were included. Two studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. Eight studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to incomplete outcomes data (high drop-out rates) and potential selective reporting. The other 10 studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. A non-significant trend in favour of sulfasalazine over placebo for inducing remission was observed, with benefit confined mainly to patients with Crohn's colitis. Forty-five per cent (63/141) of sulfasalazine patients entered remission at 17-18 weeks compared to 29% (43/148) of placebo patients (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.89, 2 studies). A GRADE analysis rated the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome as moderate due to sparse data (106 events). There was no difference between sulfasalazine and placebo in adverse event outcomes. Sulfasalazine was significantly less effective than corticosteroids and inferior to combination therapy with corticosteroids (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.86, 1 study, 110 patients). Forty-three per cent (55/128) of sulfasalazine patients entered remission at 17 to 18 weeks compared to 60% (79/132) of corticosteroid patients (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.91; 2 studies, 260 patients). A GRADE analysis rated the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome as moderate due to sparse data (134 events). Sulfasalazine patients experienced significantly fewer adverse events than corticosteroid patients (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.82; 1 study, 159 patients). There was no difference between sulfasalazine and corticosteroids in serious adverse events or withdrawal due to adverse events. Olsalazine was less effective than placebo in a single trial (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.71; 91 patients). Low dose mesalamine (1 to 2 g/day) was not superior to placebo for induction of remission. Twenty-three per cent (43/185) of low dose mesalamine patients entered remission at week 6 compared to 15% (18/117) of placebo patients (RR = 1.46, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.40; n = 302). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to risk of bias (incomplete outcome data) and sparse data (61 events). There was no difference between low dose mesalamine and placebo in the proportion of patients who had adverse events (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.96; 3 studies, 342 patients) or withdrew due to adverse events (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.95; 3 studies, 342 patients). High dose controlled-release mesalamine (4 g/day) was not superior to placebo, inducing a clinically non significant reduction in CDAI (MD -19.8 points, 95% CI -46.2 to 6.7; 3 studies, 615 patients), and was also inferior to budesonide (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.78; 1 study, 182 patients, GRADE = low). While high dose delayed-release mesalamine (3 to 4.5 g/day) was not superior to placebo for induction of remission (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.75 to 5.45; 1 study, 38 patients, GRADE = very low), no significant difference in efficacy was found when compared to conventional corticosteroids (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.36; 3 studies, 178 patients, GRADE = moderate) or budesonide (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05; 1 study, 307 patients, GRADE = moderate). However, these trials were limited by risk of bias (incomplete outcome data) and sparse data (small numbers of events). There was a lack of good quality clinical trials comparing sulfasalazine with other mesalamine formulations. Adverse events that were commonly reported included headache, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhea.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Sulfasalazine is only modestly effective with a trend towards benefit over placebo and is inferior to corticosteroids for the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease. Olsalazine and low dose mesalamine (1 to 2 g/day) are not superior to placebo. High dose mesalamine (3.2 to 4 g/day) is not more effective than placebo for inducing response or remission. However, trials assessing the efficacy of high dose mesalamine (4 to 4.5 g/day) compared to budesonide yielded conflicting results and firm conclusions cannot be made. Future large randomized controlled trials are needed to provide definitive evidence on the efficacy of aminosalicylates in active Crohn's disease.
Topics: Aminosalicylic Acids; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Budesonide; Crohn Disease; Delayed-Action Preparations; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Mesalamine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfasalazine
PubMed: 27372735
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008870.pub2 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Dec 2020To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Active conventional treatment and three different biological treatments in early rheumatoid arthritis: phase IV investigator initiated, randomised, observer blinded clinical trial.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.
DESIGN
Investigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study.
SETTING
Twenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein.
INTERVENTIONS
Randomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI≤2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms.
RESULTS
812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval -5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and -0.6% (-10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms.
CONCLUSIONS
All four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
EudraCT2011-004720-35, NCT01491815.
Topics: Abatacept; Adult; Aged; Anti-Citrullinated Protein Antibodies; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; C-Reactive Protein; Certolizumab Pegol; Denmark; Drug Therapy, Combination; Early Medical Intervention; Female; Finland; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Injections, Intra-Articular; Male; Methotrexate; Middle Aged; Netherlands; Norway; Prednisolone; Rheumatoid Factor; Severity of Illness Index; Single-Blind Method; Sulfasalazine; Sweden; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33268527
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m4328 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Ulcerative colitis is an inflammatory condition affecting the colon, with an annual incidence of approximately 10 to 20 per 100,000 people. The majority of people with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ulcerative colitis is an inflammatory condition affecting the colon, with an annual incidence of approximately 10 to 20 per 100,000 people. The majority of people with ulcerative colitis can be put into remission, leaving a group who do not respond to first- or second-line therapies. There is a significant proportion of people who experience adverse effects with current therapies. Consequently, new alternatives for the treatment of ulcerative colitis are constantly being sought. Probiotics are live microbial feed supplements that may beneficially affect the host by improving intestinal microbial balance, enhancing gut barrier function and improving local immune response.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of probiotics compared with placebo or standard medical treatment (5-aminosalicylates, sulphasalazine or corticosteroids) for the induction of remission in people with active ulcerative colitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 31 October 2019. We contacted authors of relevant studies and manufacturers of probiotics regarding ongoing or unpublished trials that may be relevant to the review, and we searched ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched references of trials for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of probiotics compared to standard treatments or placebo in the induction of remission of active ulcerative colitis. We considered both adults and children, with studies reporting outcomes of clinical, endoscopic, histologic or surgical remission as defined by study authors DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of included studies. We analysed data using Review Manager 5. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
In this review, we included 14 studies (865 randomised participants) that met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of the studies looked at adult participants and two studies looked at paediatric participants with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis, the average age was between 12.5 and 47.7 years. The studies compared probiotics to placebo, probiotics to 5-ASA and a combination of probiotics plus 5-ASA compared to 5-ASA alone. Seven studies used a single probiotic strain and seven used a mixture of strains. The studies ranged from two weeks to 52 weeks. The risk of bias was high for all except two studies due to allocation concealment, blinding of participants, incomplete reports of outcome data and selective reporting. This led to GRADE ratings of the evidence ranging from moderate to very low. Probiotics versus placebo Probiotics may induce clinical remission when compared to placebo (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.54; 9 studies, 594 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to imprecision and risk of bias, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5). Probiotics may lead to an improvement in clinical disease scores (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.63; 2 studies, 54 participants; downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). There may be little or no difference in minor adverse events, but the evidence is of very low certainty (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.59; 7 studies, 520 participants). Reported adverse events included abdominal bloating and discomfort. Probiotics did not lead to any serious adverse events in any of the seven studies that reported on it, however five adverse events were reported in the placebo arm of one study (RR 0.09, CI 0.01 to 1.66; 1 study, 526 participants; very low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to high risk of bias and imprecision). Probiotics may make little or no difference to withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.72; 4 studies, 401 participants; low-certainty evidence). Probiotics versus 5-ASA There may be little or no difference in the induction of remission with probiotics when compared to 5-ASA (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.16; 1 study, 116 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). There may be little or no difference in minor adverse events, but the evidence is of very low certainty (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.33; 1 study, 116 participants). Reported adverse events included abdominal pain, nausea, headache and mouth ulcers. There were no serious adverse events with probiotics, however perforated sigmoid diverticulum and respiratory failure in a patient with severe emphysema were reported in the 5-ASA arm (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.22; 1 study, 116 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Probiotics combined with 5-ASA versus 5-ASA alone Low-certainty evidence from a single study shows that when combined with 5-ASA, probiotics may slightly improve the induction of remission (based on the Sunderland disease activity index) compared to 5-ASA alone (RR 1.22 CI 1.01 to 1.47; 1 study, 84 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to unclear risk of bias and imprecision). No information about adverse events was reported. Time to remission, histological and biochemical outcomes were sparsely reported in the studies. None of the other secondary outcomes (progression to surgery, need for additional therapy, quality of life scores, or steroid withdrawal) were reported in any of the studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence suggests that probiotics may induce clinical remission in active ulcerative colitis when compared to placebo. There may be little or no difference in clinical remission with probiotics alone compared to 5-ASA. There is limited evidence from a single study which failed to provide a definition of remission, that probiotics may slightly improve the induction of remission when used in combination with 5-ASA. There was no evidence to assess whether probiotics are effective in people with severe and more extensive disease, or if specific preparations are superior to others. Further targeted and appropriately designed RCTs are needed to address the gaps in the evidence base. In particular, appropriate powering of studies and the use of standardised participant groups and outcome measures in line with the wider field are needed, as well as reporting to minimise risk of bias.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bias; Child; Colitis, Ulcerative; Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Mesalamine; Middle Aged; Numbers Needed To Treat; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Sample Size; Sulfasalazine
PubMed: 32128795
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005573.pub3 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2023Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DiHS)/drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a systemic inflammatory condition that is characterized by...
Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DiHS)/drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a systemic inflammatory condition that is characterized by multisystemic involvement (liver, blood, and skin), heterogeneous manifestations (fever, rash, lymphadenopathy, and eosinophilia), and an unpredictable course; cases of DiHS/DRESS caused by sulfasalazine are rare in children compared to adults. We report a case of a 12-year-old girl with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and sulfasalazine-related hypersensitivity who developed fever, rash, blood abnormalities, and hepatitis complicated with hypocoagulation. The treatment with intravenous and then oral glucocorticosteroids was effective. We also reviewed 15 cases (67% male patients) of childhood-onset sulfasalazine-related DiHS/DRESS from the MEDLINE/PubMed and Scopus online databases. All reviewed cases had a fever, lymphadenopathy, and liver involvement. Eosinophilia was reported in 60% of patients. All patients were treated with systemic corticosteroids, and one patient required emergency liver transplantation. Two patients (13%) died. A total of 40.0% of patients satisfied RegiSCAR definite criteria, 53.3% were probable, and 80.0% satisfied Bocquet's criteria. Only 13.3% satisfied typical and 20.0% atypical DIHS criteria from the Japanese group. Pediatric rheumatologists should be aware of DiHS/DRESS due to its similarities to other systemic inflammatory syndromes (especially systemic JIA, macrophage activation syndrome, and secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis). Further studies of DiHS/DRESS syndrome in children are needed to improve its recognition and differential diagnostic and therapeutic options.
PubMed: 37293296
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1140339