Cyclosporine in the Treatment of Drug Reaction With Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms Syndrome: Retrospective Cohort Study.
Systemic Symptoms
adverse reaction
case series
cohort study
cyclosporine
dermatology
drug reaction
drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms
drug reactions
drug-induced
drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome
drugs
eosinophil
eosinophilia
eosinophils
pharmaceutic
pharmacology
pharmacy
rash
skin
treatment
Journal
JMIR dermatology
ISSN: 2562-0959
Titre abrégé: JMIR Dermatol
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101770607
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Jul 2023
20 Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
24
07
2022
accepted:
13
06
2023
revised:
29
04
2023
medline:
27
8
2023
pubmed:
27
8
2023
entrez:
26
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome is a severe, life-threatening reaction to a culprit drug that frequently involves end-organ damage. Corticosteroids are the first-line treatment for DRESS syndrome; however, corticosteroids may be contraindicated in certain patient populations. There are currently only 54 cases detailing the use of cyclosporine for the treatment of DRESS syndrome reported in the literature. The aim of this case series was to examine the treatment of DRESS syndrome with cyclosporine in a large patient cohort by aggregating time to symptom resolution, recurrence rate, and treatment dose and duration. This study was a retrospective cohort study. Patients diagnosed with DRESS syndrome by a board-certified dermatologist and treated at the University of Colorado Hospital from 2015 to 2019 were included. Our inclusion criterion was met by 19 occurrences of DRESS syndrome. With a short course of cyclosporine, 17 of 19 patients in our cohort (89%) had resolution of symptoms (mean treatment length of 5.26 days). DRESS syndrome's relapse after treatment with cyclosporine occurred in 3 of 19 (16%) occurrences of the cohort. Our study supports the use of cyclosporine in the treatment of DRESS syndrome, particularly in patients who are unable to sustain prolonged immunosuppression. Further research is necessary to compare the efficacy of cyclosporine to the current standard of care in a larger study population and investigate long-term outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome is a severe, life-threatening reaction to a culprit drug that frequently involves end-organ damage. Corticosteroids are the first-line treatment for DRESS syndrome; however, corticosteroids may be contraindicated in certain patient populations. There are currently only 54 cases detailing the use of cyclosporine for the treatment of DRESS syndrome reported in the literature.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this case series was to examine the treatment of DRESS syndrome with cyclosporine in a large patient cohort by aggregating time to symptom resolution, recurrence rate, and treatment dose and duration.
METHODS
METHODS
This study was a retrospective cohort study. Patients diagnosed with DRESS syndrome by a board-certified dermatologist and treated at the University of Colorado Hospital from 2015 to 2019 were included.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Our inclusion criterion was met by 19 occurrences of DRESS syndrome. With a short course of cyclosporine, 17 of 19 patients in our cohort (89%) had resolution of symptoms (mean treatment length of 5.26 days). DRESS syndrome's relapse after treatment with cyclosporine occurred in 3 of 19 (16%) occurrences of the cohort.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our study supports the use of cyclosporine in the treatment of DRESS syndrome, particularly in patients who are unable to sustain prolonged immunosuppression. Further research is necessary to compare the efficacy of cyclosporine to the current standard of care in a larger study population and investigate long-term outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37632913
pii: v6i1e41391
doi: 10.2196/41391
pmc: PMC10401189
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e41391Informations de copyright
©Sophia Zita, Lindsey Broussard, Jeremy Hugh, Sabrina Newman. Originally published in JMIR Dermatology (http://derma.jmir.org), 20.07.2023.
Références
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2017 Jul;33(7):499-502
pubmed: 28665896
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2021 Dec;127(6):674-681
pubmed: 34400311
Arch Dermatol. 1996 Jun;132(6):623-9
pubmed: 8651712
Pract Dermatol. 2018 Oct;2018:41-43
pubmed: 30574026
Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2017 Nov-Dec;83(6):713-717
pubmed: 28984626
Clin Exp Dermatol. 2003 Jul;28(4):364-5
pubmed: 12823292
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jun;74(6):767-773
pubmed: 29500599
Clin Nephrol. 2005 Aug;64(2):155-8
pubmed: 16114793
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020 Jan;8(1):398-400
pubmed: 31271919
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 May;68(5):709.e1-9; quiz 718-20
pubmed: 23602183
JAMA Dermatol. 2016 Nov 1;152(11):1254-1257
pubmed: 27438540
Am J Emerg Med. 2012 May;30(4):638.e1-3
pubmed: 21514761
Arch Argent Pediatr. 2022 Apr;120(2):e80-e84
pubmed: 35338821
JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jun 1;156(6):704-706
pubmed: 32159726
BMJ Case Rep. 2023 Mar 21;16(3):
pubmed: 36944441
J Dermatol. 2018 Jun;45(6):e169-e170
pubmed: 29315746
J Korean Med Sci. 2008 Jun;23(3):521-5
pubmed: 18583892
Australas J Dermatol. 2023 Feb;64(1):50-57
pubmed: 36695042
Dermatol Online J. 2020 Jun 15;26(6):
pubmed: 32815686
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014 Nov;71(5):1000-1000.e2
pubmed: 25437959
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015 Apr;29(4):801-4
pubmed: 24628777
ScientificWorldJournal. 2013 Jul 25;2013:805705
pubmed: 23983647