Síndrome DRESS por paracetamol / DRESS syndrome due to acetaminophen

A síndrome DRESS é uma entidade rara e distinta, caracterizada por acometimento cutâneo e envolvimento de órgãos internos, com risco potencial de morte. O diagnóstico e o tratamento pre- coces são de vital importância. Relatos de DRESS por paraceta- mol são raros na literatura, razão pela qual apresentamos este caso. Paciente do sexo masculino, 56 anos, com surgimento de rash maculopapular, febre, linfadenopatia e hipereosinofilia 3 semanas após suspensão de paracetamol, associados ao ante- cedente familiar de reação a fármaco. Evoluiu bem após pulso- terapia com metilprednisolona.

DRESS syndrome is a rare and distinct entity characterized by cutaneous manifestations and internal organs involvement with a potential risk of death. Early diagnosis and treatment are vi- tally important. Reported cases of DRESS syndrome due to ace- taminophen are rare in the literature, and that is the reason for this case report. A 56-year-old male patient with maculopapular rash, fever, lymphadenopathy, and hypereosinophilia three we- eks after suspension of acetaminophen, associated with a family history of drug reaction. It progressed well after pulse therapy with methylprednisolone.

Consensus on the diagnostic and therapeutic management of chronic spontaneous urticaria in adults - Brazilian Society of Dermatology

Abstract: Background: Urticarias are frequent diseases, with 15% to 20% of the population presenting at least one acute episode in their lifetime. Urticaria are classified in acute ( ≤ 6 weeks) or chronic (> 6 weeks). They may be induced or spontaneous. Objectives: To verify the diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations in chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), according to the experience of Brazilian experts, regarding the available guidelines (international and US). Methods: A questionnaire was sent to Brazilian experts, with questions concerning diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations for CSU in adults. Results: Sixteen Brazilian experts answered the questionnaire related to diagnosis and therapy of CSU in adults and data were analyzed. Final text was written, considering the available guidelines (International and US), adapted to the medical practices in Brazil. Diagnostic work up in CSU is rarely necessary. Biopsy of skin lesion and histopathology may be indicated to rule out other diseases, such as, urticarial vasculitis. Other laboratory tests, such as complete blood count, CRP, ESR and thyroid screening. Treatment of CSU includes second-generation anti-histamines (sgAH) at licensed doses, sgAH two, three to fourfold doses (non-licensed) and omalizumab. Other drugs, such as, cyclosporine, immunomodulatory drugs and immunosuppressants may be indicated (non-licensed and with limited scientific evidence). Conclusions: Most of the Brazilian experts in this study partially agreed with the diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations of the International and US guidelines. They agreed with the use of sgAH at licensed doses. Increase in the dose to fourfold of sgAH may be suggested with restrictions, due to its non-licensed dose. Sedating anti-histamines, as suggested by the US guideline, are indicated by some of the Brazilian experts, due to its availability. Adaptations are mandatory in the treatment of CSU, due to scarce or lack of other therapeutic resources in the public health system in Brazil, such as omalizumab or cyclosporine.

Guía clínica chilena de urticaria crónica espontánea / Chilean guidelines for chronic urticaria

Chronic urticaria (CU) is characterized by itchy wheals, angioedema or both lasting six weeks or more. It is classified as spontaneous (CSU) and inducible urticaria (CIndU), depending whether there is an identifiable trigger or not. CSU is the predominant form, affecting more than 75% of patients, although overlaps often occur. The prevalence of CSU throughout life is around 1.8% and predominates in women at a ratio of 2:1. The higher incidence of CSU is between 20 and 40 years of age and lasts between one to five years. However, in up to 20% of patients the disease may last longer. CSU not only hampers quality of life, but also affect performance at work and school. The diagnosis of CSU is mainly clinical, and laboratory tests are required depending on the clinical history of the patient. Extensive laboratory tests are usually unnecessary. Second generation anti-histamines are used as first line treatment for CSU treatment. In refractory patients, systemic treatments, such as cyclosporine or omalizumab are suggested. We herein report the first Chilean CSU guidelines.

Uremic pruritus in hemodialysis patients: treatment with desloratidine versus gabapentin / Prurido urêmico em pacientes em hemodiálise: tratamento com desloratidina versus gabapentina

INTRODUCTION: Uremic pruritus is common among dialysis patients. Effective treatments are not readily available. Early evidence with antihistamines and gabapentin indicate variable effects. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and side effects of gabapentin and desloratadine in patients with dialysis pruritus. METHODS: Prospective, open-label, cross-over clinical trial in 22 patients on chronic hemodialysis with sustained pruritus over a period of at least 60 days. After a one-week run-in period, we assigned patients to three weeks of either gabapentin 300 mg thrice weekly or desloratadine 5 mg thrice weekly. After a one-week washout period, each patient crossed-over to the alternate regimen for three more weeks. The primary endpoint of the study was the change in the visual analogue pruritus score (VAS). RESULTS: Nineteen subjects completed the two treatment blocks and were available for analysis. VAS scores decreased with both treatments (5.95 to 4.6 with gabapentin, p = 0.07; 5.89 to 3.4 with desloratadine, p = 0.004), but only desloratadine reached statistical significance. There were no differences when comparing the final pruritus score with gabapentin and desloratadine (4.6 versus 3.4, p = 0.16) Excessive sedation was common with gabapentin. Desloratadine was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Desloratadine provides significant relief of uremic pruritus compared with no therapy. gabapentin has marginal efficacy. Desloratadine is better tolerated than gabapentin.

INTRODUÇÃO: Prurido urêmico é comum entre pacientes em diálise. Tratamentos eficazes não estão disponíveis até o momento. Provas recentes com anti-histamínicos e gabapentina indicam vários efeitos. OBJETIVO: Comparar a eficiência e os efeitos colaterais da gabapentina e da desloratadina em pacientes com prurido na diálise. MÉTODOS: Estudo prospectivo, aberto e comparativo com 22 pacientes em hemodiálise crônica com prurido constante durante um período de pelo menos 60 dias. Após uma semana, submetemos os pacientes a três semanas de gabapentina 300 mg, três vezes por semana, ou desloratadina 5 mg três vezes por semana. Após um período de eliminação de uma semana, os pacientes trocaram de regime por mais três semanas. O objetivo primário do estudo foi a mudança na escala visual analógica (EVA) de prurido. RESULTADOS: Dezenove indivíduos completaram os dois tratamentos e foram submetidos à análise. Os escores da EVA caíram com ambos os tratamentos (5,95 para 4,6 com gabapentina, p = 0,07; 5,89 para 3,4 com desloratadina, p = 0,004), mas somente a desloratadina teve significância estatística. Nenhuma diferença foi observada ao comparar o escore final do prurido com gabapentina e desloratadina (4,6 versus 3,4, p = 0,16). Excesso de sedação foi comum com gabapentina. A desloratadina teve alto nível de tolerância. CONCLUSÃO: A desloratadina dá alívio significante do prurido urêmico quando comparada a nenhum tratamento. A gabapentina tem eficiência marginal. A desloratadina tem maior nível de tolerância em relação à gabapentina.

Futura study: evaluation of efficacy and safety of rupatadine fumarate in the treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis / Estudo futura: avaliação da eficácia e segurança do fumarato de rupatadina no tratamento da rinite alérgica persistente

Allergic rhinitis affects 10-30 percent of the population, negatively impacting one's quality of life and productivity. It has been associated with sinusitis, otitis media, sleep disorders, and asthma. Rupatadine is a second generation antihistamine with increased affinity to histamine receptor H1; it is also a potent PAF (platelet-activating factor) antagonist. It starts acting quite quickly, offers long lasting effect, and reduces the chronic effects of rhinitis. AIM: this study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of rupatadine in the treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis. MATERIALS AND METHOD: this is a multi-centric open prospective study. This study included 241 patients from 13 centers in Brazil and was held between October of 2004 and August of 2005. Signs and symptoms of rhinitis and tolerance to medication were analyzed after one and two weeks of treatment. RESULTS: reduction on general scores from 8.65 to 3.21 on week 2 (p<0.001). All signs and symptoms improved significantly in the first day of treatment (p<0.001), except for nasal congestion and secretion, which improved from the second day of treatment (p<0.001). Adverse events occurred in 19.9 percent of the cases, 27.7 percent on week 1. CONCLUSION: rupatadine effectively controls persistent allergic rhinitis; it is safe and presents low incidence of side effects.

A rinite alérgica acomete 10 a 30 por cento da população, interferindo na qualidade de vida e na capacidade produtiva. Está associada à sinusite, otite, roncopatias e asma. A Rupatadina é um anti-histamínico de segunda geração, com elevada afinidade ao receptor histamínico H1 e potente inibição do fator ativador plaquetário (PAF). Tem rápido início de ação, longa duração e reduz os efeitos crônicos da rinite. OBJETIVO: Avaliar a eficácia e segurança da rupatadina no tratamento da rinite alérgica persistente. MATERIAL E MÉTODO: Estudo multicêntrico, aberto, prospectivo. Foram selecionados 241 pacientes em 13 centros no Brasil durante o período de outubro de 2004 a agosto de 2005. Foram analisados os sinais e sintomas da rinite e a tolerabilidade após 1 e 2 semanas. RESULTADOS: Redução do escore geral de 8,65 para 3,21 na semana 2 (p<0,001). Todos os sinais e sintomas melhoraram significativamente, e no primeiro dia de tratamento (p<0,001), com exceção da obstrução e secreção nasal, a partir do segundo dia (P<0,001). A frequência de eventos adversos foi 19,9 por cento, sendo 27,7 por cento na 1ª semana. CONCLUSÕES: A rupatadina é eficaz no controle da rinite alérgica persistente, é segura e apresenta baixos índices de efeitos colaterais.