Características dermatopatológicas de las farmacodermias en la Cátedra de Dermatología del Hospital de Clínicas. FCM-UNA *

Beatriz Di Martino Ortiz

doi:10.18004/

Authors

Beatriz Di Martino Ortiz Cátedra de Dermatología. Hospital de Clínicas. Facultad de Ciencias Médicas. Universidad Nacional de Asunción

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18004/

Keywords:

toxicodermias, adverse drug reactions, lichenoid drug eruptions, Paraguay

Abstract

Introduction: Toxicodermias comprise all adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that are expressed primarily at the skin or mucous membrane level due to a drug, regardless of the manner of administration thereof. Objectives: To determine the Dermatopathological, clinical and epidemiological characteristics of toxicodermias in the Department of Dermatology, Hospital de Clinicas, FCM-UNA. Material and Methods: Descriptive, observational, retrospective, cross-sectional study with an analytical component of patients of any age or gender who were treated at the Department of Dermatology, Hospital de Clinicas, FCM-UNA of both sexes and of any age with confirmed farmacodermia diagnosis during January 2008 to December 2012. Results: The frequency of toxicodermias is 1,6% with a slight predominance in female patients (53%) and with a peak incidence in the fourth decade of life (15%). The most frequent reason for consultation was erythema (52%) macula (43%), finding that most of the injuries occurred within 7 days of drug administration (36%). The most commonly involved drugs were NSAIDs, anticonvulsants and antibiotics. 80% of patients showed lichenoid eruptions. The overall percentage of agreement is a p0=0,918369 and the kappa coefficient is=0,836738. Conclusions: As in most other dermatological diseases, the diagnosis of cutaneous adverse drug reactions is based on clinico-pathological correlation. Nevertheless, there are some histopathological clues that can suggest this diagnosis such as the presence of tisular eosinophilia and/or dyskeratosis and the combination of unusual and apparently incongruent histopathological patterns. Identification of histopathological patterns and anatomoclinical correlation are indispensable for the differential with other inflammatory dermatoses, allowing for an early and precise diagnosis and a reduction of treatment and hospitalization costs.

References

1. Galimany J, Samaniego A, Vinuesa M, Mindel E, Darraguerre F. Farmacovigilancia: Detección de reacciones adversas a medicamentos tipo B. Factores de riesgo asociados. Archivos Argentinos de Alergia e Inmunología 1999;30(3):18-28.

2. Ruiz I, Pinilla E. La Piel y los efectos adversos de los medicamentos. Aspectos generales de farmacovigilancia. Rev. Chilena Dermatol. 1997;13(2):119-124.

3. Roujeau JC, Stern RS. Severe adverse cutaneous reactions to drugs. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1272-1285.

4. Crowson AN, Magro CM. Recent advances in the pathology of cutaneous drug eruptions. Dermatol Clin 1999 Jul; 17(3): 537-60.

5. Bronnimann M, Yawalkar N. Histopathology of drug-induced exanthems: is there a role in diagnosis of drug allergy? Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2005;5:317-21.

6. Fernández Figueras MT. Reacciones cutáneas a tratamientos farmacológicos y cosméticos. Rev Esp Patol. 2007; 40(2): 69-78.

7. Sacerdoti G, Vozza A, Ruocco V. Identifying skin reactions to drugs. Int J Dermatol 1993; 32(7): 469-79.

8. Kozel MM, Mekkes JR, Bossuyt PM, Bos JD: The effectiveness of a history-based diagnostic approach in chronic urticaria and angioedema. Arch Dermatol 1998;134:1575-1580.

9. Salkind AR, Cuddy PG, Foxworth JW: The rational clinical examinations this patient allergic to penicillin? An evidence-based analysis of the likelihood of penicillin allergy. JAMA 2001;285:2498-2505.

10. Kauppinen K, Stubb S. Drug eruptions: Causative agents and clinical types. A series of in-patients during a 10 years period. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1984;64:320-324.

11. Alanko K, Stubb S, Kauppinen K. Cutaneous drug reactions: Clinical types and causative agents. A five year survey of in patients(1981-1985). Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1989;69:223-226.

12. Hulley SB, Cummming SR. Desingning Clinical Research 1988;13:220.

13. Breathnach SM and Hintner H. Adverse Drug Reactions and the Skin. Backwell Scientific Publications. First edition, 1992.

14. Bigby M, Jick S, Jick H, Arndt K. Drug-induced cutaneous reactions. A report from the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program on 15438 consecutive inpatients, 1975 to 1982. JAMA 1986;256(24):3358-3363.

15. Stubb S, Heikkilä H, Kauppinen K. Cutaneous reactions to drugs: A series of in patients during a five year period. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1994;74:289-291.

16. Hunziker T, Künzi U, Braunschweig S. Comprehensive hospital drug monitoring (CHDM): adverse skin reactions, a 20-year survey. Allergy 1997; 52: 388-393.

17. Bigby M. Rates of cutaneous reactions to drugs. Arch Dermatol 2001;137:765-770.

18. Weedon D. Cutaneous drug reactions. In: Weedon D, ed. The Skin. Edinburgh: Churchill-Livingston 1992:559-569.

19. Bastuji-Garin S, Rzany B, Stern RS. et al. Clinical classification of cases of toxic epidermal necrolysis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome and erythema multiform. Arch Dermatol 1993;129:92-96.

20. Staughton RC, Payne CM, Harper JI, et al: Toxic pustuloderma: a new entity. J R Soc Med 1984;77(suppl. 4):6-8.

21. Wintroub BU, Stern R. Cutaneous drug reactions: pathogenesis and clinical classification. J Am Acad Dermatol 1985;13(2 Pt. 1):167-79.

22. Crowson AN, Magro CM. The dermatopathology of drug eruptions. Curr Probl Dermatol. 2002;14:117-146.

23. Londoño DA, Mendoza MA, Correa LA, Hoyos JG, Estrada S. concordancia entre el diagnóstico clínico y el histopatológico en pacientes con lesiones dermatológicas. Rev Asoc Colomb Dermatol 2011;19:119-126.

24. Cepeda S, Pérez A. Estudios de concordancia: intercambiabilidad en sistemas de medición. En: Ruiz A, Morillo L, editores. Epidemiología clínica, investigación clínica aplicada. Primera edición. Bogotá: Editorial Panamericana; 2004. p.293-307.