C-Reactive Protein and Procalcitonin in Case Reports of Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms (DRESS) Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The spectrum of inflammatory marker response in DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms) syndrome has not been systematically characterized. METHODS: An epidemiological biomarker study of C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) values in patients with DRESS syndrome reported at 2 regional pharmacovigilance centers in Switzerland or published in the medical literature 2008-2016 was performed. RESULTS: Ninety-four DRESS cases were studied. All cases showed a CRP value > 10 mg/L (the upper limit of normal). The mean CRP value was 109.2 ± 79.4 mg/L. CRP values were significantly higher in 22 cases where a cause of inflammation besides DRESS could not be excluded (mean 162.1 vs. 92.9 mg/L; p = 0.003). Receiver operator characteristics curve analysis showed a moderate performance with a CRP cut-off value of 99.4 mg/L (AUC 0.717) to distinguish between patients with and without a possible additional cause of inflammation. The mean and median PCT values were 2.44 ± 5.94 and 0.69 ng/mL, respectively (n = 25 patients). Patients in whom an additional cause of inflammation besides DRESS could not be excluded showed a median PCT of 1.37 ng/mL (n = 9) versus 0.67 ng/mL (n = 16) in patients with DRESS only. PCT values were above the normal cut-off of 0.1 ng/mL, suggestive of bacterial infection in all but 1 case. Furthermore, there was a correlation between PCT values and hepatic enzyme measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating CRP and PCT values might be of use in helping physicians to distinguish between cases of DRESS syndrome with and without concurrent infection or other causes of inflammation. Further prospective investigation is required to define the use of these inflammatory markers in the management of DRESS.

Hematological safety of metamizole: retrospective analysis of WHO and Swiss spontaneous safety reports.

PURPOSE: Since the 1970s, the use of metamizole is controversial due to the risk of agranulocytosis. The aim of this study was to analyze individual case safety reports (ICSRs) of metamizole-associated hematological adverse drug reactions (ADRs). METHODS: International and Swiss metamizole-associated ICSR concerning selected hematological ADR were retrieved from VigiBase™, the World Health Organization Global Database of ICSR, and the Swiss Pharmacovigilance Database. We evaluated demographic data, co-medication, drug administration information, dose and duration of metamizole treatment, as well as the latency time of ADR, their course, and severity. The subgroup analysis of Swiss reports allowed us to analyze cases with fatal outcome more in depth and to estimate a rough minimal incidence rate. RESULTS: A total of 1417 international and 77 Swiss reports were analyzed. Around 52 % of the international and 33 % of the Swiss metamizole-associated hematological ADR occurred within a latency time of ≤7 days. More women were affected. The annual number of hematological reports and those with fatal outcome increased over the last years parallel to metamizole sales figures. In Switzerland, the minimal incidence rate of agranulocytosis was 0.46-1.63 cases per million person-days of use (2006-2012). Female sex, old age, pancytopenia, and co-medication with methotrexate were striking characteristics of the seven Swiss fatal cases. CONCLUSIONS: Metamizole-associated hematological ADR remain frequently reported. This is underscored by increasing annual reporting rates, which mainly reflect growing metamizole use. Early detection of myelotoxicity and avoidance of other myelotoxic substances such as methotrexate are important measures for preventing fatalities.

Dose adjustment in patients with liver cirrhosis: impact on adverse drug reactions and hospitalizations.

AIM AND BACKGROUND: To assess drug-related problems in patients with liver cirrhosis by investigating the prevalence of inadequately dosed drugs and their association with adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and hospitalizations. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional retrospective study assessing the dose adequacy of drug treatment of 400 cirrhotic patients at hospital admission based on the authors' own previous studies and standard literature. The prevalence of total and preventable ADRs and of hospitalizations due to preventable ADRs was determined. RESULTS: Of all 1653 drugs prescribed (median 4 per patient), 336 (20 %) drugs were inadequately dosed in 184 patients. Overall, 210 ADRs (78 % preventable) occurred in 120 patients. Sixty-nine ADRs (33 % of all ADRs) were associated with inadequate drug dosing in 46 patients, of which 68 % were preventable. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and psycholeptics in particular frequently caused preventable ADRs associated with inadequate drug dosing. Inadequate drug dosing was more frequently associated with ADRs than adequate drug dosing, and patients receiving inadequately dosed drugs were more frequently admitted to the hospital due to ADRs. Hospitalization of patients receiving inadequately dosed drugs that caused preventable ADRs resulted in 94 additional hospital days. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, inadequate drug dosing was associated with an increased frequency of ADRs, hospital admissions and hospital days in cirrhotic patients. We therefore conclude that the careful dosing of critical drugs is important in patients with liver cirrhosis.

Potential drug-drug interactions and adverse drug reactions in patients with liver cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with liver cirrhosis may be at risk for potential drug-drug interactions (pDDIs) and/or adverse drug reactions (ADRs) due to the severity of their disease and comorbidities associated with polypharmacy. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional retrospective study including 400 cirrhotic patients and assessed diagnoses, medication patterns, pDDIs, and ADRs at hospital admission. RESULTS: The median (range) age of the patients was 60 (21-88) years; 68.5% were male. They had a total of 2,415 diagnoses, resulting in 6 (1-10) diagnoses per patient. Frequent were diagnoses of the digestive system (28.4%), circulatory system (14.2%), blood and blood-forming organs (8.7%), and psychiatric disorders (7.5%); 60.7% of the diagnoses were not liver-associated. The median number of drugs per patient was 5 (0-18), whereof 3 (0-16) were predominantly hepatically eliminated. Drugs were primarily indicated for gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, or nervous system disorders, reflecting the prevalent diagnoses. In 112 (28%) patients, 200 ADRs were detected, mainly associated with spironolactone, torasemide, furosemide, and ibuprofen. In 86 (21.5%) patients, 132 pDDIs were detected. Seven of these pDDIs were the direct cause of 15 ADRs, whereof 3 resulted in hospital admission. Patients with ADRs were older, had more comorbidities, were treated with more drugs, and had a worse renal function and more pDDIs than patients without ADRs. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacotherapy is complex in cirrhotic patients. Hepatologists should know the principles of dose adjustment in cirrhosis and renal failure, but also the most important pDDIs of the drugs used to treat liver disease and comorbidities in this population.

[Fatal Outcome of Agranulocytosis after Re-Exposure to Metamizole and Cefepime-Induced Encephalopathy]. / Agranulozytose nach Metamizol-Reexposition und Cefepim-induzierte Enzephalopathie mit fatalem Ausgang.

Fatal Outcome of Agranulocytosis after Re-Exposure to Metamizole and Cefepime-Induced Encephalopathy Abstract. We present the case of an 83-year-old female patient who died as a result of likely drug-induced complications, namely agranulocytosis caused by metamizole and cefepime-induced encephalopathy. Agranulocytosis precipitated a cascade of events that eventually led to death. As prescription of metamizole has increased over the past decades, it is important to keep in mind its serious adverse drug reactions. Metamizole must be stopped immediately at the onset of symptoms such as fever, mucositis and sore throat, and re-exposure in patients who have previously developed leukopenia under metamizole must be avoided. This can be achieved by meticulous documentation in the medical records and the use of an emergency or allergy alert card which the patient carries at all times. When using cefepime, renal function should be closely monitored, especially in multimorbid geriatric patients, and the dose should be adjusted accordingly.

Hypersensitivity reaction with multi-organ failure following re-exposure to rifampicin: case report and review of the literature including WHO spontaneous safety reports.

BACKGROUND: True hypersensitivity reactions to rifampicin are relatively rare, nonetheless severe manifestations mostly involving a single organ have been documented. We report a case of acute multi-organ failure occurring after a medication error with re-exposure to rifampicin. CASE PRESENTATION: A 68-year old patient developed acute hypersensitivity pneumonitis, acute renal failure, acute liver failure and haemolytic anemia within hours after a second re-exposure to Rifampicin for the treatment of a hip prosthesis infection with Staphylococcus epidermidis. A recent rifampicin exposure 1 week earlier had resulted in a massive rise of CRP levels without organ manifestations. Nine years previously, the patient had developed a multi-organ hypersensitivity reaction 8 days after commencing treatment with rifampicin for pulmonary tuberculosis; and 23 years previously he had received rifampicin without problems. The organ-specific hypersensitivity reactions were largely reversible after withdrawal of rifampicin and treatment with steroids. A review of the literature and summary of WHO spontaneous safety reports is also given. CONCLUSIONS: Re-exposure to rifampicin in sensitised individuals may cause acute severe hypersensitivity reactions. Due to its indications in the management of mycobacterial and implant-associated infections, rifampicin is a drug which might be given decades apart, which poses a risk that information about previous intolerance is lost.

Age-related differences in the prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions in ambulatory dyslipidaemic patients treated with statins.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Elderly patients may be at higher risk of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) because of polypharmacy. This study evaluated age-specific differences in the prevalence of clinically relevant potential DDIs (pDDIs) in ambulatory dyslipidaemic patients treated with an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin). We hypothesised that elderly patients are at higher risk for pDDIs because of the presence of more drugs and drugs with a higher potential for DDIs in this age group. METHODS: A total of 2742 dyslipidaemic ambulatory patients treated with a statin were included in this cross-sectional study. Drug treatment was screened for clinically relevant pDDIs using an electronic drug interaction program (DRUG-REAX System). RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 483 (17.6%) patients aged < or = 54 years, 732 (26.7%) aged 55-64 years, 924 (33.7%) aged 65-74 years and 603 (22.0%) patients aged > or = 75 years. Patients > or =75 years had significantly more pharmacologically active substances prescribed than patients aged < or =54 years (mean 5.8 vs 3.8, respectively; p < 0.001). Cardiovascular diseases such as coronary heart disease, heart failure or arrhythmias were also significantly more prevalent in patients aged > or = 75 years than in younger patients. The overall prevalence of pDDIs increased significantly from 7.9% in those aged < or = 54 years to 18.4% in patients aged > or = 75 years (p < 0.001). The frequency of both pDDIs associated with statins and non-statin pDDIs increased with age. Risk factors for pDDIs in patients aged > or = 75 years were arrhythmias, heart failure and the number of pharmacologically active substances prescribed. The more frequent prescription of cardiovascular drugs with a high potential for pDDIs (e.g. amiodarone and digoxin) in patients aged > or = 75 years was mainly responsible for the observed increases in statin and non-statin pDDIs in this age group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with younger patients, elderly dyslipidaemic patients are at a higher risk for clinically relevant pDDIs, mainly because of a higher number of drugs prescribed. In addition, patients aged > or = 75 years were prescribed more drugs with a high potential for DDIs, especially drugs used for the treatment of arrhythmias and heart failure. The risk for adverse reactions associated with pDDIs may often be reduced by dose adjustment, close monitoring or selection of an alternative drug.

Prevalence of potentially severe drug-drug interactions in ambulatory patients with dyslipidaemia receiving HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor therapy.

BACKGROUND: Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are a well known risk factor for adverse drug reactions. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors ('statins') are a cornerstone in the treatment of dyslipidaemia and patients with dyslipidaemia are concomitantly treated with a variety of additional drugs. Since DDIs are associated with adverse reactions, we performed a cross-sectional study to assess the prevalence of potentially critical drug-drug and drug-statin interactions in an outpatient adult population with dyslipidaemia. METHODS: Data from patients with dyslipidaemia treated with a statin were collected from 242 practitioners from different parts of Switzerland. The medication list was screened for potentially harmful DDIs with statins or other drugs using an interactive electronic drug interaction program. RESULTS: We included 2742 ambulatory statin-treated patients (mean age +/- SD 65.1 +/- 11.1 years; 61.6% males) with (mean +/- SD) 3.2 +/- 1.6 diagnoses and 4.9 +/- 2.4 drugs prescribed. Of those, 190 patients (6.9%) had a total of 198 potentially harmful drug-statin interactions. Interacting drugs were fibrates or nicotinic acid (9.5% of patients with drug-statin interactions), cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 inhibitors (70.5%), digoxin (22.6%) or ciclosporin (cyclosporine) [1.6%]. The proportion of patients with a potential drug-statin interaction was 12.1% for simvastatin, 10.0% for atorvastatin, 3.8% for fluvastatin and 0.3% for pravastatin. Additionally, the program identified 393 potentially critical non-statin DDIs in 288 patients. CONCLUSIONS: CYP3A4 inhibitors are the most frequent cause of potential drug interactions with statins. As the risk for developing rhabdomyolysis is increased in patients with drug-statin interactions, clinicians should be aware of the most frequently observed drug-statin interactions and how these interactions can be avoided.

Hepatotoxicity of New Oral Anticoagulants (NOACs).

Case reports and analyses of clinical studies and of pharmacovigilance data suggest that new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are associated with a small risk for hepatotoxicity. The objective of this publication is to summarize the current data about this subject, with a special emphasis on pharmacovigilance data in the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSR) database and on potential mechanisms of hepatotoxicity. For that, all available case reports as well as published analyses of clinical studies were obtained with a detailed search in PubMed. In addition, pharmacovigilance data from VigiBase(®), the WHO Global ICRS database, were extracted and analyzed. The data show that liver injury associated with NOACs was reported in clinical studies and in pharmacovigilance databases. Several case reports described potentially life-threatening hepatotoxicity in patients treated with rivaroxaban or dabigatran. For rivaroxaban, most affected patients were symptomatic and liver injury was most often hepatocellular or mixed. The frequency was between 0.1 and 1 % in clinical studies and was by trend lower than for comparators (mostly enoxaparin or warfarin). Comparing the pharmacovigilance reports for the individual NOACs, more hepatic adverse events were reported for rivaroxaban than for dabigatran or apixaban. With the exception of edoxaban, for which only few reports are available, patients with acute liver failure have been reported for every NOAC, but most patients had concomitant drugs or diseases. So far, there are no clear mechanisms explaining the hepatotoxicity of these drugs. We conclude that hepatotoxicity appears to be associated with all NOACs currently on the market. Hepatotoxicity associated with NOACs is idiosyncratic; it appears at therapeutic doses, is rare and the mechanism is not related to the pharmacological action of these drugs. Prescribers should inform patients about possible symptoms of hepatotoxicity and stop these drugs in patients presenting with severe liver injury.

Symptomatic hepatocellular liver injury with hyperbilirubinemia in two patients treated with rivaroxaban.

IMPORTANCE: Treatment with the new oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban can be associated with severe liver injury. OBSERVATIONS: We report 2 patients with predominantly hepatocellular liver injury that had onset during treatment with rivaroxaban. Both were symptomatic, had massively elevated transaminase activity levels and hyperbilirubinemia, and fulfilled the criteria of Hy's law. Liver biopsy in 1 patient revealed centroacinar hepatocyte necrosis as the predominant finding. Both patients showed a rapid biochemical and clinical recovery after discontinuing rivaroxaban therapy. Between 2008 and 2013, 42 cases of liver injury possibly associated with rivaroxaban treatment have been reported to the Swiss Agency of Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic). Thirteen of these patients fulfilled the criteria of Hy's law. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Treatment with rivaroxaban can be associated with severe, symptomatic liver injury. Physicians should be aware of this adverse drug reaction. We propose rapid discontinuation of treatment with rivaroxaban in case of symptomatic liver injury and, taking into account its severity, avoiding reexposure.

Comparative safety of antipsychotics in the WHO pharmacovigilance database: the haloperidol case.

BACKGROUND: Starting in 2007, regulatory agencies strengthened label warnings for intravenous haloperidol. Based on adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports of QT prolongation and torsades de pointes, regulatory agencies recommended the use of continuous telemetry or advising against the intravenous administration in general. Intravenous haloperidol is commonly used as a first line treatment for acute delirium. Consequently, the extended warning has caused uncertainty among health care professionals. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to critically evaluate the WHO global individual case safety report (ICSR) database VigiBase for QT prolongation, torsades and/or cardiac arrest involving intravenous haloperidol compared to other routes of administration and the antipsychotics olanzapine and quetiapine. METHOD: All WHO safety reports (1972-2010) of cardiac reactions associated with haloperidol, quetiapine and olanzapine were evaluated, including dose, route of administration and patient risk factors. Reporting odds ratios for the 3 antipsychotics were calculated. Main outcome measure Number of submitted reports on different antipsychotics. RESULTS: The absolute number of ICSR regarding QT prolongation, torsades and/or cardiac arrest were: haloperidol (365 cases), olanzapine (489) and quetiapine (520). Reporting rates of haloperidol did not increase over the last two decades. 32% of the haloperidol cases involved oral, 16.4% intramuscular and 22.7% intravenous administration. The difference of the reporting odds ratios of haloperidol and quetiapine were not statistically significant. Olanzapine was associated with a slightly lower reporting odds ratio. CONCLUSION: While regulatory agencies advise against the use of intravenous haloperidol, review of VigiBase does not reveal that the intravenous route is any more likely to be associated with cardiac adverse events. Furthermore, our results do not demonstrate any additional risk associated with haloperidol when compared with alternative agents. Although pharmacovigilance data does not routinely include a denominator regarding frequency of use, regulatory agencies are currently advising against the use of intravenous haloperidol based on pharmacovigilance, but the number of overall reports is greater for quetiapine and olanzapine when compared to haloperidol. Improved pharmacovigilance approaches are needed to more accurately address the safe, effective use of medicines.

Hepatotoxicity during rapid intravenous loading with amiodarone: Description of three cases and review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia after cardiac surgery. Amiodarone can effectively prevent and control postoperative atrial and ventricular fibrillation. Acute hepatic damage after intravenous amiodarone, which can be fatal, is not well recognized. We describe three cases of acute hepatocellular injury after intravenous amiodarone administration in critically ill patients. Another 25 published cases and six cases reported to the Swiss Pharmacovigilance Center (Swissmedic) are discussed. DESIGN: This study consisted of a series of three case reports and review of the literature. SETTING: : This study was conducted at an operative critical care unit at the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland. PATIENTS: Three hemodynamically compromised patients after open heart surgery developed significant increases of transaminases (up to more than 100-fold of the upper limit of normal) shortly after the introduction of intravenous amiodarone. INTERVENTIONS AND MEASUREMENT: Cessation of intravenous amiodarone and of other potentially hepatotoxic drugs. RESULTS: Liver parameters significantly improved or returned to normal in all three patients, even after start of oral amiodarone in two patients. CONCLUSIONS: Amiodarone is a highly effective antiarrhythmic agent for the treatment and prevention of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias. Acute liver damage after intravenous amiodarone, possibly induced by the solubilizer polysorbate 80, is rare but potentially harmful. Amiodarone loading should therefore be adapted to the necessity of an immediate effect of the drug, and liver function should be monitored closely in critically ill patients. Oral maintenance therapy with amiodarone is possible, even in patients who developed liver disease during intravenous loading.

Lithium intoxication as a result of an interaction with rofecoxib.

OBJECTIVE: To report the occurrence of lithium intoxication in a patient with bipolar disorder after adding rofecoxib to the medication regimen. CASE SUMMARY: A 68-year-old woman with bipolar disorder under long-term treatment with lithium, carbamazepine, pipamperon, and mirtazapine was prescribed rofecoxib 25 mg twice daily for the treatment of leg pain. Within one week, she showed progressive hypokinesia and tremor, which was treated with propranolol. Subsequently, she developed bradycardia, necessitating treatment with isoproterenol. Her lithium serum concentration had doubled compared with those before rofecoxib, and her renal function had deteriorated. After stopping lithium and rofecoxib, her laboratory values and neurologic signs improved or normalized within 2 days. An objective causality assessment revealed a probable relationship between concomitant use of the drugs and the resulting symptoms. DISCUSSION: As of May 24, 2004, only 3 cases of reversible lithium intoxication as a result of a possible interaction with rofecoxib or celecoxib have been previously reported. The mechanism of the interaction between lithium and cyclooxygenase (COX) 2 selective inhibitors is most probably related to inhibition of renal synthesis of prostaglandins, which are important for the maintenance of renal perfusion and tubular function. Impairment of renal blood flow, leading to a decrease in the glomerular filtration rate, and increased proximal tubular absorption are the most likely mechanisms by which COX-2 selective inhibitors reduce lithium clearance. CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of rofecoxib and lithium may result in life-threatening lithium intoxication, especially in patients with a preexisting decrease in renal function and/or decreased intravascular volume.