Clinical analysis of 45 cases of drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome
10.35541/cjd.20200420
- VernacularTitle:药物超敏反应综合征45例临床特点分析
- Author:
Sisi DENG
;
Huan WANG
;
Nanlan YU
;
Song LI
;
Zhiqiang SONG
- From:
Chinese Journal of Dermatology
2021;54(2):127-130
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To analyze clinical characteristics of drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS) , and to compare the European, Japanese and Chinese diagnostic criteria.Methods:A total of 45 patients confirmedly diagnosed with DIHS according to the DIHS criteria originally proposed by Bocquet, were collected from the First Affiliated Hospital (Southwest Hospital) of Army Medical University between January 2009 and January 2019. Clinical data on the 45 patients were retrospectively analyzed, clinical characteristics were summarized and re-evaluated according to the European, Japanese and Chinese diagnostic criteria separately, and differences were analyzed in terms of the latency period, time to rash regression, eosinophil count, liver function indices, etc. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare means among multiple groups, and t test to compare means between two groups. Results:Of the 45 patients, 38 presented with eruptive drug eruptions, and 44 were accompanied by liver damage, 40 by elevated counts of peripheral white blood cells, 38 by eosinophilia, 21 by lymphadenectasis, and 4 by mucosal damage. Common culprit drugs included allopurinol (10 cases) , anti-tuberculosis drugs (7 cases) , cephalosporins (7 cases) , and Chinese medicine (4 cases) . Forty patients were treated with glucocorticoids, and 17 with glucocorticoids and intravenous gamma globulin. After treatment, 44 patients received improvement and 1 died. According to the European diagnostic criteria, there were 29 patients with suspected DIHS and 16 with confirmed DIHS; according to the Japanese diagnostic criteria, 37 patients could be confirmedly diagnosed with DIHS, but 8 could not be confirmedly diagnosed; according to the Chinese diagnostic criteria, 17 patients could be confirmedly diagnosed, but 28 could not be confirmedly diagnosed. According to the Japanese diagnostic criteria, the latency period was significantly longer in the patients with a confirmed diagnosis (36.91 ± 21.73 d) than in those without (20.00 ± 20.82 d, P = 0.04) . Conclusions:Common culprit drugs for DIHS include allopurinol, anti-tuberculosis drugs and cephalosporins. Most patients with DIHS are accompanied by liver damage, and the European diagnostic criteria are preferentially recommended for DIHS.
