Suppr超能文献

癫痫中的仓促决策:评估对抗癫痫药物的超敏反应

Making Rash Decisions in Epilepsy: Evaluating Hypersensitivity Reactions to Anti-seizure Medications.

作者信息

Bermeo-Ovalle Adriana

出版信息

Epilepsy Curr. 2019 Mar-Apr;19(2):96-98. doi: 10.1177/1535759719835672.

Abstract

UNLABELLED

The Frequency and Clinical Features of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Antiepileptic Drugs in Children: A Prospective Study Guvenir H, Dibek Misirlioglu E, Civelek E. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018;6(6):2043-2050.

BACKGROUND

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) can cause hypersensitivity reactions during childhood. Studies report a wide clinical spectrum of reactions with AED use, ranging from a mild rash to severe cutaneous reactions.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence and clinical features of AED hypersensitivity reactions during childhood.

METHODS

Patients in our pediatric neurology clinic who were prescribed an AED for the first time between November 2015 and November 2016 were monitored and those who developed skin rash during this period were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 570 patients were evaluated. The median age of the patients was 8.86 (interquartile range, 4.2-13.7) years, and 55.8% (318) of patients were male. The most frequently used AEDs were valproic acid (42%, n = 285) and carbamazepine (20.4%, n = 116). Hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs developed in 5.4% of patients. Of these patients, 71% (29) had cutaneous drug reactions and 29% (9) had severe cutaneous drug reactions; 61.3% (19) were using aromatic AEDs, and the leading suspected AED was carbamazepine (45.2%). Comparison of patients who did and did not develop AED hypersensitivity showed that hypersensitivity was more frequent among patients who were younger than 12 years, who used aromatic AEDs, or who used multiple AEDs. In addition, according to regression analysis results, aromatic AED use significantly increased the risk of AED hypersensitivity ( P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although allergic reactions to AEDs are rare, they are of significance because they can cause life-threatening severe cutaneous drug reactions. Therefore, patients receiving AEDs, especially aromatic AEDs, must be monitored closely. Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis With Antiepileptic Drugs: An Analysis of the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System Borrelli EP, Lee EY, Descoteaux AM, Kogut SJ, Caffrey AR. Epilepsia. 2018;59(12):2318-2324.

OBJECTIVE

Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are rare and potentially fatal adverse skin reactions that are most commonly triggered by certain medications. One class of medications that has been highly associated with SJS/TEN reactions is antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). We sought to quantify the risk of SJS/TEN associated with AEDs as a class, as well as individual AEDs, in the United States.

METHODS

An analysis was performed of the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System from July 2014 through December 2017. Rates of SJS/TEN were calculated for each AED compared with all other non-AEDs. Reporting odds ratios (RORs), proportional reporting ratios (PRRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using OpenEpi.

RESULTS

With 198 reports, AEDs had more reports of SJS/TEN than any other medication class. The AEDs as a class had an ROR of 8.7 (95% CI, 7.5-10.2) and a PRR of 8.7 (95% CI, 7.5-10.2) compared with all other non-AEDs. The AEDs with the highest risk estimates were zonisamide (ROR, 70.2; 95% CI, 33.1-148.7; PRR, 68.7; 95% CI, 32.9-143.5), rufinamide (ROR, 60.0; 95% CI, 8.3-433.5; PRR, 58.9; 95% CI, 8.4-411.5), clorazepate (ROR, 56.0; 95% CI, 7.8-404.1; PRR, 55.1; 95% CI, 7.8-385.0), lamotrigine (ROR, 53.0; 95% CI, 43.2-64.9; PRR, 52.2; 95% CI, 42.7-63.7), phenytoin (ROR, 26.3; 95% CI, 15.5-44.7; PRR, 26.1; 95% CI, 15.4-44.2), and carbamazepine (ROR, 24.5; 95% CI, 16.0-37.5; PRR, 24.3; 95% CI, 16.0-37.1).

SIGNIFICANCE

Although AEDs as a class were associated with 9 times the risk of SJS/TEN compared with non-AEDs, there were 6 AEDs with risk estimates greater than 20. Increased awareness of this risk among both prescribers and patients, particularly variations in risk among different AEDs, along with education on early recognition of SJS/TEN signs/symptoms, may help mitigate the number and severity of these adverse events.

摘要

未标注

儿童抗癫痫药物过敏反应的频率及临床特征:一项前瞻性研究 居韦尼尔·H、迪贝克·米西尔利奥卢·E、奇韦莱克·E。《过敏与临床免疫实践杂志》。2018年;6(6):2043 - 2050。

背景

抗癫痫药物(AEDs)在儿童期可引起过敏反应。研究报告了使用AEDs时广泛的临床反应谱,从轻度皮疹到严重皮肤反应。

目的

确定儿童期AEDs过敏反应的患病率及临床特征。

方法

对2015年11月至2016年11月期间首次在我们儿科神经科门诊开具AEDs处方的患者进行监测,并对在此期间出现皮疹的患者进行评估。

结果

共评估了570例患者。患者的中位年龄为8.86(四分位间距,4.2 - 13.7)岁,55.8%(318例)为男性。最常用的AEDs是丙戊酸(42%,n = 285)和卡马西平(20.4%,n = 116)。5.4%的患者发生了AEDs过敏反应。在这些患者中,71%(29例)有皮肤药物反应,29%(9例)有严重皮肤药物反应;61.3%(19例)使用芳香族AEDs,主要可疑AED是卡马西平(45.2%)。发生和未发生AEDs过敏反应的患者比较显示,12岁以下、使用芳香族AEDs或使用多种AEDs的患者中过敏反应更常见。此外,根据回归分析结果,使用芳香族AEDs显著增加了AEDs过敏反应的风险(P <.001)。

结论

虽然对AEDs的过敏反应很少见,但因其可导致危及生命的严重皮肤药物反应而具有重要意义。因此,接受AEDs治疗的患者,尤其是芳香族AEDs治疗的患者,必须密切监测。抗癫痫药物所致史蒂文斯 - 约翰逊综合征和中毒性表皮坏死松解症:美国食品药品监督管理局不良事件报告系统分析 博雷利·E.P、李·E.Y、德斯科托·A.M、科古特·S.J、卡弗里·A.R。《癫痫杂志》。2018年;59(12):2318 - 2324。

目的

史蒂文斯 - 约翰逊综合征(SJS)和中毒性表皮坏死松解症(TEN)是罕见且可能致命的不良皮肤反应,最常见由某些药物引发。与SJS/TEN反应高度相关的一类药物是抗癫痫药物(AEDs)。我们试图量化在美国AEDs作为一类药物以及个别AEDs与SJS/TEN相关的风险。

方法

对2014年7月至2017年12月期间美国食品药品监督管理局不良事件报告系统进行分析。计算每种AED与所有其他非AED相比的SJS/TEN发生率。使用OpenEpi计算报告比值比(RORs)、比例报告比值(PRRs)和95%置信区间(CIs)。

结果

AEDs有198份报告,SJS/TEN报告比任何其他药物类别都多。与所有其他非AED相比,AEDs作为一类药物的ROR为8.7(95%CI,7.5 - 10.2),PRR为8.7(95%CI,7.5 - 10.2)。风险估计最高的AEDs是唑尼沙胺(ROR,70.2;95%CI,33.1 - 148.7;PRR,68.7;95%CI, 32.9 - 143.5)、卢非酰胺(ROR,60.0;95%CI,8.3 - 433.5;PRR,58.9;95%CI,8.4 - 411.5)、氯氮卓(ROR,56.0;95%CI,7.8 - 404.1;PRR,55.1;95%CI,7.8 - 385.0)、拉莫三嗪(ROR,53.0;95%CI,43.2 - 64.9;PRR,52.2;95%CI,42.7 - 63.7)、苯妥英(ROR,26.3;95%CI,15.5 - 44.7;PRR,26.1;95%CI,15.4 - 44.2)和卡马西平(ROR,24.5;95%CI,16.0 - 37.5;PRR,24.3;95%CI,16.0 - 37.1)。

意义

虽然AEDs作为一类药物与SJS/TEN的风险相比是非AEDs的9倍,但有6种AEDs的风险估计大于20。提高开处方者和患者对这种风险的认识,特别是不同AEDs之间风险的差异,以及对SJS/TEN体征/症状早期识别的教育,可能有助于减轻这些不良事件的数量和严重程度。

相似文献

6
Severe cutaneous adverse reactions to antiepileptic drugs in Asians.亚洲人群抗癫痫药物的严重皮肤不良反应。
Neurology. 2011 Dec 6;77(23):2025-33. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31823b478c. Epub 2011 Nov 23.

本文引用的文献

1
Genetic markers of severe cutaneous adverse reactions.严重皮肤不良反应的遗传标志物。
Korean J Intern Med. 2018 Sep;33(5):867-875. doi: 10.3904/kjim.2018.126. Epub 2018 Jun 22.
2
An Updated Review of the Molecular Mechanisms in Drug Hypersensitivity.药物过敏反应的分子机制最新研究综述
J Immunol Res. 2018 Feb 13;2018:6431694. doi: 10.1155/2018/6431694. eCollection 2018.
7
Antiepileptic drugs and adverse skin reactions: An update.抗癫痫药物与皮肤不良反应:最新进展
Pharmacol Rep. 2015 Jun;67(3):426-34. doi: 10.1016/j.pharep.2014.11.009. Epub 2014 Nov 27.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验