Handoko Kim B, van Puijenbroek Eugène P, Bijl Annemarie H, Hermens Walter A J J, Zwart-van Rijkom Jeannette E F, Hekster Yechiel A, Egberts Toine C G
Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacotherapy, Utrecht Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Drug Saf. 2008;31(8):695-702. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200831080-00006.
Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) can cause various 'idiosyncratic' hypersensitivity reactions, i.e. the mechanism by which AEDs induce hypersensitivity is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess whether the presence of an aromatic ring as a commonality in chemical structures of AEDs can explain symptoms of hypersensitivity.
Between January 1985 and January 2007, all adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb related to AEDs as suspected drugs were included in this study. ADRs were analysed using a case/non-case design. Cases were defined as those patients with ADRs involving symptoms of hypersensitivity. Non-cases were patients with all other ADR reports. Symptoms of hypersensitivity were classified according to the Gell and Coombs classification (type I-IV) and the organ involved (e.g. cutaneous, hepatic). AEDs were classified as aromatic anticonvulsant if their chemical structure contained at least one aromatic ring. All other AEDs were classified as non-aromatic. We assessed the strength of the association between aromatic AEDs versus non-aromatic AEDs and reported hypersensitivity reactions with logistic regression analysis and expressed these as reporting odds ratios (RORs).
In total, 303 cases of hypersensitivity associated with the use of AEDs were reported. Aromatic AEDs were suspected in 64.4% of these reports versus 41.3% (574/1389) of the non-hypersensitivity reports. A significant ROR of 2.15 (95% CI 1.63, 2.82) was found for aromatic AEDs and all hypersensitivity reactions. Aromatic AEDs were significantly associated with immunoglobin E-mediated type I hypersensitivity reactions (ROR 2.15; 95% CI 1.23, 3.78) and T-cell-mediated type IV reactions (ROR 6.06; 95% CI 3.41, 10.75). Type II and III reactions did not show an association. Cutaneous symptoms represented 39.9% of the hypersensitivity-related ADRs. Aromatic AEDs were significantly associated with cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions (ROR 5.81; 95% CI 3.38, 9.99).
This study confirms that the presence of an aromatic ring as a common feature in chemical structures of AEDs partly explains apparent 'idiosyncratic' hypersensitivity reactions. Symptoms of hypersensitivity were reported twice as frequently with aromatic AEDs than with non-aromatic AEDs. Strong associations for aromatic AEDs versus non-aromatic AEDs were found for T-cell-mediated (type IV) reactions, as well as for cutaneous reactions.
抗癫痫药物(AEDs)可引发各种“特异质性”过敏反应,即AEDs诱发过敏反应的机制尚不清楚。本研究的目的是评估AEDs化学结构中作为共性的芳香环的存在是否能够解释过敏症状。
在1985年1月至2007年1月期间,本研究纳入了向荷兰药品警戒中心Lareb报告的所有与AEDs作为可疑药物相关的药物不良反应(ADRs)。使用病例/非病例设计对ADRs进行分析。病例定义为出现涉及过敏症状的ADRs的患者。非病例为所有其他ADR报告的患者。根据盖尔和库姆斯分类法(I-IV型)以及受累器官(如皮肤、肝脏)对过敏症状进行分类。如果AEDs的化学结构包含至少一个芳香环,则将其分类为芳香族抗惊厥药。所有其他AEDs分类为非芳香族。我们通过逻辑回归分析评估芳香族AEDs与非芳香族AEDs和报告的过敏反应之间的关联强度,并将其表示为报告比值比(RORs)。
总共报告了303例与使用AEDs相关的过敏反应。在这些报告中,64.4%怀疑是芳香族AEDs,而非过敏反应报告中这一比例为41.3%(574/1389)。发现芳香族AEDs与所有过敏反应的显著ROR为2.15(95%CI 1.63,2.82)。芳香族AEDs与免疫球蛋白E介导的I型过敏反应(ROR 2.15;95%CI 1.23,3.78)和T细胞介导的IV型反应(ROR 6.06;95%CI 3.41,10.75)显著相关。II型和III型反应未显示出关联。皮肤症状占与过敏相关的ADRs的39.9%。芳香族AEDs与皮肤过敏反应显著相关(ROR 5.81;95%CI 3.38,9.99)。
本研究证实,AEDs化学结构中作为共同特征的芳香环的存在部分解释了明显的“特异质性”过敏反应。芳香族AEDs报告的过敏症状频率是非芳香族AEDs的两倍。发现芳香族AEDs与非芳香族AEDs在T细胞介导的(IV型)反应以及皮肤反应方面存在强关联。