-
BioMed Research International 2019The syndrome of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a rare, yet potentially fatal hypersensitivity reaction, most commonly associated with...
BACKGROUND
The syndrome of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a rare, yet potentially fatal hypersensitivity reaction, most commonly associated with anticonvulsants, sulfonamides, and allopurinol. The reaction commonly manifests as a febrile skin eruption with lymphadenopathy and malaise between two and eight weeks following drug exposure. Internal organ involvement occurs in close to 90 percent of patients, and multiple organs may be involved in approximately half of those affected (most commonly the liver, kidney, and lung). Its long latency period and its variable clinical pattern of presentation have earned it the moniker of "the great mimicker," with delays in diagnosis leading to higher morbidity and mortality. Although less commonly affected in DRESS syndrome, lung involvement is associated with more severe clinical course and potentially worse outcome. Pulmonary symptoms may precede development of the other more common symptoms and signs of the syndrome, or they might develop later in the course of the disease. Lung involvement in DRESS presents with a plethora of manifestations from mild cough or dyspnea with nonspecific interstitial changes on chest imaging to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with life-threatening hypoxic respiratory failure.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of literature from the PubMed database and selected cases of definite DRESS syndrome as defined by the European Registry of Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions (RegiSCAR) with a score of 6 or more who also had pulmonary involvement. Demographic data, pattern of lung involvement, culprit medication, latency period, laboratory findings, therapy, and outcome were described and compared with the literature.
RESULTS
The most common pulmonary radiographic findings in DRESS were interstitial infiltrates in 50% of cases, followed by acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) 31%. Symptoms of cough and shortness of breath (SOB) were present in 72% of patients at the time of presentation. SOB was the more common presenting symptom (81%) compared to cough (19%). In 95% of cases, another visceral organ was involved (most commonly liver or kidneys). 45% of cases were initially misdiagnosed as pneumonia and were treated with empiric antimicrobials. In a multivariate regression, a latency of 30 days or less and an age of 60 or less were associated with development of ARDS. Gender and eosinophil count were not associated with severity of pulmonary manifestations. All patients recovered, and in the vast majority of cases (95%), parenteral steroids were used for treatment in addition to supportive care and symptomatic management.
CONCLUSION
Albeit rare, DRESS is a potentially life-threatening syndrome which may present with a myriad of pulmonary signs and symptoms. Pulmonary manifestations are less common but are typically seen in more severe cases. Pulmonary manifestations may be a presenting sign of DRESS, and timely recognition is important in order to stop offending medication and decrease morbidity and mortality.
Topics: Drug Hypersensitivity Syndrome; Eosinophilia; Humans; Lung; Pneumonia; Respiratory Distress Syndrome
PubMed: 31662996
DOI: 10.1155/2019/7863815 -
BMC Health Services Research Oct 2019Skin rash remains one of the most prevalent and troublesome clinical problems experienced by patients on chemotherapy and targeted therapy. To ensure high-quality care,...
BACKGROUND
Skin rash remains one of the most prevalent and troublesome clinical problems experienced by patients on chemotherapy and targeted therapy. To ensure high-quality care, guidelines are seen as the best guidance. Considering the quality of guidelines varies greatly, a systematical appraisal of the methodological quality of guidelines for the management of skin rash in patients on chemotherapeutic drugs and targeted anticancer therapies was undertaken, in order to identify appropriate ones for healthcare professionals.
METHODS
A systematic search of databases and Internet was conducted to obtain pertinent guidelines. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of guidelines according to the inclusion criteria. Then the guidelines included were appraised by three researchers with the methodological quality of eligible guideline using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREEII).
RESULTS
Totally nineteen guidelines met the inclusion criteria. The quality ranged from good to acceptable in scope and purpose (mean: 78.80%, range: 66.67-94.44%) and clarity of presentation domains (mean: 85.38%, 75.00-91.67%), but not in stakeholder involvement (mean: 50.15%, range: 36.11-75.00%), rigor of development (mean: 23.65%, range: 6.25-70.83%), applicability (mean: 23.96%, range: 4.17-52.08%), and editorial independence domains (mean: 45.18%, range: 0.00-87.50%). Overall, two guidelines were classified as "recommended".
CONCLUSIONS
Only two guidelines were recommended to manage skin rash in patients on chemotherapy and targeted therapies, most guidelines issued were of low to moderate quality. Thus, more attention should be paid to the methodological quality of guideline development in this field.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Databases, Factual; Drug Eruptions; Exanthema; Humans; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 31619221
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-019-4539-6 -
La Clinica Terapeutica 2019Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) is a common skin toxicity of traditional chemotherapies. Some studies showed that HFS has an association with progression-free survival (PFS)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) is a common skin toxicity of traditional chemotherapies. Some studies showed that HFS has an association with progression-free survival (PFS) and the overall survival (OS). So far, there is not available any systematic literature reviews or meta-analysis aimed to assess the associations between HFS, PFS and OS. For this reason, this study aims to quantitatively summarize, critically review, and interpret the recent literature related to the associations between HFS and efficacy of chemotherapy in terms of PFS and OS. Queries shaped by PICOM framework, a systematic search of three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Science Direct) was carried out for the period between January 2010 and December 2017. Quantitative data pooling was based on the calculation of Hazard Ratio (HR) with 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) for the OS and PFS associated to the presence of HFS, through the data of original publications. Five papers were included in this systematic review for the quantitative data pooling. Patients with HFS showed improved PFS (HR = 0.532 [0.431-0.656]; p = 0.000) and improved OS (HR = 0.522 [0.427-0.638]; p = 0.000). HFS causes a reduction of compliance with oncology treatments. Healthcare providers should use this result as a trigger to foster patients' coping and the one of their family caregivers, enhancing their adherence to cancer treatments.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Female; Hand-Foot Syndrome; Humans; Male; Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Risk Factors
PubMed: 31612198
DOI: 10.7417/CT.2019.2165 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2019Drug-induced skin reactions present with a range of clinical symptoms, from mild maculopapular skin rashes to potentially fatal blistering skin rashes - such as...
BACKGROUND
Drug-induced skin reactions present with a range of clinical symptoms, from mild maculopapular skin rashes to potentially fatal blistering skin rashes - such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) or toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) - which may result in death. Milder reactions may be troublesome and lead to low drug compliance. The pathogenesis of these drug reactions is not yet fully understood; however, there is evidence that pretreatment genetic testing may help to predict and prevent these reactions in some cases.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of prospective pharmacogenetic screening to reduce drug-associated skin reactions in a patient population.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to July 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs of participants who had prospective pharmacogenetic screening to determine genetic variants associated with hypersensitivity reactions, compared with those who did not have prospective pharmacogenetic screening. We included participants in any setting, who were of any age, gender, and ethnicity, who had been prescribed drugs known to cause delayed type hypersensitivity reactions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. To assess studies for inclusion, two review authors independently screened all of the titles and abstracts of publications identified by the searches. Because there was only one included study, many of the planned data analyses were not applicable to the review. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the included study.The review's primary outcomes were the incidence of severe skin rashes with systemic symptoms (such as fever and multiple organ involvement), and long-term effects (such as scarring of eyelids or lung tissue). Secondary outcomes were hospitalisation for drug-induced skin reactions, blistering skin reactions (such as SJS, hypersensitivity (HSS) syndrome), and death.
MAIN RESULTS
One study, which was a randomised, double-blind, controlled, multicentre trial, fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The trial included 1956 adult participants (74% men, with a mean age of 42 years) across 265 centres (medical centres, hospitals, outpatient clinics) in 19 countries around the world who were infected with HIV-type 1 and who had not received abacavir previously. The participants, who had a clinical need for treatment with an antiretroviral-drug regimen containing abacavir, were randomly assigned to undergo prospective human leukocyte antigen (HLA) Class I, locus B, allele 57:01 (HLA-B*57:01) screening (prospective-screening group) before this treatment, or to undergo a standard-care approach of abacavir use without prospective HLA-B*57:01 screening (control group). Participants who tested positive for HLA-B*57:01 were not given abacavir; instead, they received antiretroviral therapy that did not include abacavir. The control group did have retrospective HLA-B*57:01 pharmacogenetic testing. The trial duration was six months. Each participant was observed for six weeks. Assessments were performed at the time of study entry, at baseline (day one of abacavir treatment), and at weeks one, two and six. This study was funded by the manufacturer of abacavir, GlaxoSmithKline.The study did not assess any of our primary outcomes, and it measured none of our secondary outcomes in isolation. However, it did assess an outcome of (characteristically severe) hypersensitivity reaction which included (but was not limited to) our secondary outcomes of HSS and SJS/TEN.The study demonstrated that prospective HLA-B*57:01 screening probably reduces the incidence of hypersensitivity reaction to abacavir. The incidence of clinically diagnosed HSS reaction to abacavir was lower in the screening arm (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.67; 1650 participants; moderate-quality evidence), as was immunologically confirmed HSS reaction (RR 0.02, 95% 0.00 to 0.37; 1644 participants; moderate-quality evidence). A positive result from an epicutaneous patch test performed six to ten weeks after clinical diagnosis provided immunological confirmation.Overall, the study demonstrates a low risk of bias across five out of seven domains. There was a high risk of detection bias because hypersensitivity reactions were diagnosed by the principal investigator at the recruitment site without the use of predefined clinical criteria. Although there was also high risk of attrition bias due to excluding participants with incomplete follow-up from analyses, the authors did undertake a series of sensitivity analyses based on the intention-to-treat population, which demonstrated consistent results with the primary analysis. We rated the study quality as moderate-quality using GRADE criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Prospective screening for HLA-B*57:01 probably reduces severe hypersensitivity skin reactions to abacavir in patients positive for HIV-type 1. However, these results are only based on one study, which was at high risk of attrition and detection bias.Our primary outcomes (incidence of severe skin rashes with systemic symptoms, and long-term effects) were not assessed by the trial, and only one of the review's secondary outcomes was measured (hypersensitivity reaction); thus, we found no evidence relating to hospitalisation, death, or long-term conditions resulting from drug injury.We found no eligible evidence on genetic testing for severe drug-induced skin rash in relation to different drugs and classes of drugs. Further clinical trials based on other drugs, and in different patient populations, would be useful for advising policy changes for improving the prevention of adverse skin reactions to drug treatments.
Topics: Exanthema; Genetic Testing; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stevens-Johnson Syndrome
PubMed: 31314143
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010891.pub2