Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2019
Nested case-control study investigating the diagnostic role of tissue eosinophilia in adverse cutaneous drug reactions.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Samuelov L, Nathan A, Slutsky E, Fruchter D, Gat A, Sprecher E, Goldberg I
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although tissue eosinophilia has traditionally been considered diagnostically supportive of adverse cutaneous drug reactions (ACDRs), studies have suggested it is neither a sensitive nor a specific finding in drug eruptions (DEs).
OBJECTIVES: Determining whether skin tissue eosinophilia is a reliable indicator of ACDR.
METHODS: A nested case-control retrospective study conducted in a cohort of 170 patients at a single institution. Tissue eosinophilia (number of eosinophils per high-power field (HPF)) was investigated in skin biopsies obtained from the following groups of patients who demonstrated: (i) in vitro assay and telephone interview-validated cutaneous drug reactions (true DE); (ii) initial clinical diagnosis of ACDR but drug aetiology was excluded by in vitro assay and telephone interview (false DE); and (iii) non-drug-associated cutaneous eruptions, skin tumours and nevi, randomly selected for evaluation (control).
RESULTS: Significantly higher number of eosinophils per HPF was observed in the false DE compared to the true DE group (P = 0.02). The false DE group demonstrated a higher number of eosinophils (P < 0.001) while the true DE group eosinophils' number was not significantly higher as compared to control (P = 0.2032).
CONCLUSIONS: Tissue eosinophilia is not a reliable indicator of ACDRs.
OBJECTIVES: Determining whether skin tissue eosinophilia is a reliable indicator of ACDR.
METHODS: A nested case-control retrospective study conducted in a cohort of 170 patients at a single institution. Tissue eosinophilia (number of eosinophils per high-power field (HPF)) was investigated in skin biopsies obtained from the following groups of patients who demonstrated: (i) in vitro assay and telephone interview-validated cutaneous drug reactions (true DE); (ii) initial clinical diagnosis of ACDR but drug aetiology was excluded by in vitro assay and telephone interview (false DE); and (iii) non-drug-associated cutaneous eruptions, skin tumours and nevi, randomly selected for evaluation (control).
RESULTS: Significantly higher number of eosinophils per HPF was observed in the false DE compared to the true DE group (P = 0.02). The false DE group demonstrated a higher number of eosinophils (P < 0.001) while the true DE group eosinophils' number was not significantly higher as compared to control (P = 0.2032).
CONCLUSIONS: Tissue eosinophilia is not a reliable indicator of ACDRs.