Therapie · 2018
[Drug-induced vasculitis].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Fathallah Neila, Ouni Bouraoui, Mokni Sana, Baccouche Khadija, Atig Amira, Ghariani Najat, Azzabi Awatef, Denguezli Mohamed, Slim Raoudha, Ben Salem Chaker
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Drug-induced vasculitis is reported in almost 10-20 % of vasculitis. Several drugs may be incriminated in their occurrence. Our study aimed to study the epidemiological, clinical, histopathological and evolutionary characteristics of drug-indced vasculitis from a series of cases and to specify the different drugs involved.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study during the period from January 2006 to December 2015 from the cases notified to the regional pharmacovigilance center of Sousse, Tunisia. The diagnosis was established according to the criteria proposed by the group of the American college of rheumatology (ACR).
RESULTS: Our study included thirteen cases of drug-induced vasculitis over a ten-year period, with an mean incidence of 1.3 new cases per year. Mean age of patients was 40.84 years. The mean delay from the treatment onset was 14.46 days with extremes ranging from 5 days to six weeks. Most patients had pure skin involvement. Association with other extracutaneous complaints was present in five cases. Cutaneous biopsy was performed in all patients showing a pathological pattern of leukocytoclastic vasculitis, associated with fibrinoid necrosis, extravasation of red blood cells and allergic capillaritis. The outcome was favorable for all patients. The offending drugs in our series were amoxicillin, pristinamycin, rifampicin, fluconazole, metformin, glimepiride, phenobarbital, gabapentin, fenofibrate, ibuprofen, allopurinol, rituximab and tinzaparin.
CONCLUSION: Anamnestic, clinical, biological and histopathological findings allow the early recognition of drug-induced vasculitis. Adequate treatment prevents systemic spreading and a worse prognosis.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study during the period from January 2006 to December 2015 from the cases notified to the regional pharmacovigilance center of Sousse, Tunisia. The diagnosis was established according to the criteria proposed by the group of the American college of rheumatology (ACR).
RESULTS: Our study included thirteen cases of drug-induced vasculitis over a ten-year period, with an mean incidence of 1.3 new cases per year. Mean age of patients was 40.84 years. The mean delay from the treatment onset was 14.46 days with extremes ranging from 5 days to six weeks. Most patients had pure skin involvement. Association with other extracutaneous complaints was present in five cases. Cutaneous biopsy was performed in all patients showing a pathological pattern of leukocytoclastic vasculitis, associated with fibrinoid necrosis, extravasation of red blood cells and allergic capillaritis. The outcome was favorable for all patients. The offending drugs in our series were amoxicillin, pristinamycin, rifampicin, fluconazole, metformin, glimepiride, phenobarbital, gabapentin, fenofibrate, ibuprofen, allopurinol, rituximab and tinzaparin.
CONCLUSION: Anamnestic, clinical, biological and histopathological findings allow the early recognition of drug-induced vasculitis. Adequate treatment prevents systemic spreading and a worse prognosis.