RESUMO
In the general population, up to 10% of children treated by antibiotics have cutaneous adverse drug reaction, but allergy is confirmed in less than 20% of patients. Most of the non-allergic reactions are probably due to virus, such as enterovirus acute infection or Ebstein-Barr Virus (EBV) acute infection or reactivation. Especially in children, viruses have the propensity to induce skin lesions (maculopapular rash, urticaria) due to their skin infiltration or immunologic response. In drug-related skin eruptions, a virus can participate by activating an immune predisposition. The culprit antibiotic is then the trigger for reacting. Even in severe drug-induced reactions, such as Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, viruses take part in immune phenomena, especially herpes viruses. Understanding the mechanisms of both virus- and drug-induced skin reaction is important to develop our clinical reflection and give an adaptive care to the patient. Our aim is to review current knowledge on the different aspects and potential roles of viruses in the different type of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR). Although major advances have been made those past year, further studies are needed for a better understanding of the link between viruses and DHR, to improve management of those patients.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Substance use disorders (SUD) are an important health issue internationally. Traditional outpatient programmes often do not adequately address the substantial medical and social needs and in addition many patients have difficulties accessing the care needed. The assertive community treatment (ACT) model was originally developed for patients with a severe mental illness but has been adapted for patients with SUD by integrating specific SUD treatments into the traditional ACT model. This paper aims to assess the effectiveness of ACT for patients with SUD on a number of measures. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of ACT interventions for patients with SUD by analyzing randomized controlled studies published before June 2017 found on the electronic databases PsychINFO, MEDLINE, PsychARTICLES. Eleven publications using 5 datasets were included in the analysis. Quality of studies was analyzed using the JADAD scale or Oxford quality scoring system. Outcome measures used were substance use, treatment engagement, hospitalization rates, quality of life, housing status, medication compliance and legal problems. Patients included in the studies had a diagnosis of SUD. Two datasets included homeless patients and 2 datasets included patients with high service use. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The results of the very few existing randomized control studies are mixed. Treatment engagement was higher for ACT in 4 datasets. One dataset reported higher service contact rates for the ACT group than for controls. In 2 datasets a positive effect on hospitalization rates was found. Higher fidelity to the ACT model appears to improve outcomes. Substance use reduced only in half of the datasets, of which only one showed a significant reduction in the ACT group. Overall, ACT is a promising approach that may be useful for promoting treatment engagement for patients with SUD. According to earlier studies on patients with severe mental illness, patients with high inpatient service use benefit most from this assertive approach. We hypothesize that a similar high need user group among patients with SUD might benefit most from ACT. Further research is needed to examine which types of clinical interventions might help difficult-to-engage patients with addictions.