INTRODUCTION: The worldwide prevalence of adverse drug reactions (ADR) to anti-TB medication ranges from 8% to 85%. Major adverse reactions include hepatic, renal, and hematologic disorders of which, Rifampicin-induced thrombocytopenia is one of these rare complications. CASE: A 58-year-old Filipino male developed respiratory and gastrointestinal bleeding with a severe drop in platelet count after several days of anti-tuberculosis (anti-TB) medications. The patient had oral mucosal petechiae, blood-streaked sputum, and epistaxis. The symptoms progressed to the formation of small adherent clots beneath the tongue, gum bleeding, melena, massive epistaxis, and hemoptysis with continued intake of the anti-TB drugs. The patient had anemia, normal WBC and differential count, and thrombocytopenia of 3 x 10^3/uL, a drop from 235 x 10^3/uL five days prior. The bleeding resolved with the discontinuation of the drugs. A slow graded oral challenge to each of the drugs was done to identify the culprit medication. There was a recurrence of bleeding and a decrease in the platelet count after administration of rifampicin. The anti-TB medications were modified not to include rifampicin. The patient was discharged with no signs of bleeding and a normal complete blood count. CONCLUSION TB is a prevalent disease in our country, and its medications can cause adverse drug reactions. Rifampicin-induced thrombocytopenia is a rare and life-threatening condition that physicians must be aware of and able to recognize promptly and treat properly to prevent recurrence of similar cases in the future. The patient should be forewarned not to take rifampicin and any fixed-dose combination drugs containing rifampicin.
Rifampin ; Thrombocytopenia ; Blood Platelets ; Tuberculosis

Objective: We aimed to provide practical guidance on the scoping review process, building on the methodologies and general steps outlined by Arksey and O’Malley, Levac et al. and The Joanna Briggs Institute. Methods: We reviewed the methodologies of three scoping studies conducted by the authors in the College of Public Health, University of the Philippines Manila between 2016 and 2017. For each project, we outlined the steps, tools utilized, good practices performed, challenges encountered, and recommendations for improving the scoping review process in relation to existing guidelines. We compared the similarities and differences across the three reviews and guidelines to come up with a list of good practices and recommendations. Results: We propose an expanded 10-step and iterative framework based on our analysis of three scoping studies: Define your research question; 2. Specify your research statement according to population, concept, and context; Prepare the necessary tools, forms, and software packages; 4. Assemble your expert panel and/or consultants; Develop your search strategy; 6. Implement the search strategy and retrieve identified studies; 7. Screen and assess studies for inclusion in the scoping review; 8. Chart the data; 9. Synthesize your results; and 10. Prepare your final report. Conclusion Scoping reviews as a method of evidence synthesis are increasingly gaining popularity among researchers due to the scope of what can be reviewed in a relatively short amount of time. With only three scoping studies informing our proposed methodology, other issues and challenges in the conduct of a scoping review may have been missed in the expanded framework presented in this paper. We suggest future studies to apply existing scoping review methodologies, to further enhance this rapidly evolving framework in research, policy, and practice.
Review ; Methods