Search

Drug-induced skin disease or cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs) are terms that encompass the clinical manifestations of the skin, mucosae and adnexa induced by a drug or its metabolites. The skin is the organ most frequently affected by drug reactions, which may affect up to 10% of hospitalized patients and occur in 1-3% of multimedicated patients. Most CADRs are mild or self-resolving conditions; however, 2-6.7% of could develop into potentially life-threatening conditions. CADRs represent a heterogeneous field and can be diagnostically challenging as they may potentially mimic any dermatosis. Currently, there are between 29-35 different cutaneous drug-reaction patterns reported ranging from mild dermatitis to an extensively burnt patient. The most frequently reported are maculopapular rash, urticaria/angioedema, fixed drug eruption and erythema multiforme. Less common but more severe patterns include erythroderma, drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis spectrum. Almost any drug can induce a CADR, but antibiotics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antiepileptics are the most frequently involved. Different mechanisms are involved in the pathogenesis of CADRs, although in some cases, these remain still unknown. CADRs could be classified in different ways: (i) type A (augmented) or type B (bizarre); (ii) immediate or delayed; (iii) immune-mediated or nonimmune-mediated; (iv) nonsevere or life-threatening; and (v) by their phenotype, including exanthematous, urticarial, pustular and blistering morphology. Recognizing a specific CADR will mostly depend on the ability of the physician to perform a detailed clinical examination, the proper description of the morphology of the skin lesions and supporting laboratory and/or skin biopsy findings., (© 2022 British Pharmacological Society.)

Background: Anemia is a common complication of severe forms of epidermolysis bullosa (EB). To date, there are no guidelines outlining best clinical practices to manage anemia in the EB population. The objective of this manuscript is to present the first consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and management of anemia in EB., Results: Due to the lack of high-quality evidence, a consensus methodology was followed. An initial survey exploring patient preferences, concerns and symptoms related to anemia was sent to EB patients and their family members. A second survey was distributed to EB experts and focused on screening, diagnosis, monitoring and management of anemia in the different types of EB. Information from these surveys was collated and used by the panel to generate 26 consensus statements. Consensus statements were sent to healthcare providers that care for EB patients through EB-Clinet. Statements that received more than 70% approval (completely agree/agree) were adopted., Conclusions: The end result was a series of 6 recommendations which include 20 statements that will help guide management of anemia in EB patients. In patients with moderate to severe forms of EB, the minimum desirable level of Hb is 100 g/L. Treatment should be individualized. Dietary measures should be offered as part of management of anemia in all EB patients, oral iron supplementation should be used for mild anemia; while iron infusion is reserved for moderate to severe anemia, if Hb levels of > 80-100 g/L (8-10 g/dL) and symptomatic; and transfusion should be administered if Hb is < 80 g/L (8 g/dL) in adults and < 60 g/L (6 g/dL) in children., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Esophageal strictures are the common gastrointestinal complications in patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) requiring dilation. There is limited information on the best type of intervention, outcomes, and predictors for re-stenosis., Objectives: We aimed to investigate the frequency, clinical presentation of esophageal strictures in EB patients, and to ascertain the predictors of re-stenosis., Methods: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter cohort study involving 7 specialized, international EB centers on patients who were 0 to 50 years of age. Descriptive statistics and hazard risks for re-stenosis were calculated., Results: We identified 125 patients with 497 esophageal stricture episodes over a mean period of observation of 17 (standard deviation [SD] = 11.91) years. Dilations were attempted in 90.74% of episodes, using guided fluoroscopy 45.23%, retrograde endoscopy 33.04%, and antegrade endoscopy 19.07%. Successful dilation was accomplished in 99.33% of attempts. Patients experienced a median of 2 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1-7) stricture episodes with a median interval between dilations of 7 (IQR: 4-12) months. Predictors for re-stenosis included: number of strictures (2 vs 1 stricture: χ = 4.293, P = 0.038, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.294 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.014--1.652 and 3 vs 1 stricture:χ = 7.986, P = 0.005, HR = 1.785 [95% CI: 1.194, 2.667]) and a long (≥1 cm) segment stricture (χ = 4.599, P = 0.032, HR = 1.347 (95% CI: 1.026--1.769). Complications were more common with the endoscopic approach (8/86, antegrade endoscopy; 2 /149, retrograde endoscopy vs 2/204, fluoroscopy; χ = 17.39, P-value <0.000)., Conclusions: We found excellent dilation outcomes irrespective of the dilation procedure; however, with higher complications in the endoscopic approach. Long (>1 cm) segment involvement and multiple locations were predictive of stricture reoccurrence.