Presumed dapsone-induced drug hypersensitivity syndrome causing reversible hypersensitivity myocarditis and thyrotoxicosis.

INTRODUCTION: A 22-year-old Malay soldier developed dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome 12 weeks after taking maloprim (dapsone 100 mg/pyrimethamine 12.5 mg) for anti-malarial prophylaxis. CLINICAL PICTURE: He presented with fever, rash, lymphadenopathy and multiple-organ involvement including serositis, hepatitis and thyroiditis. Subsequently, he developed congestive heart failure with a reduction in ejection fraction on echocardiogram, and serum cardiac enzyme elevation consistent with a hypersensitivity myocarditis. TREATMENT: Maloprim was discontinued and he was treated with steroids, diuretics and an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor. OUTCOME: He has made a complete recovery with resolution of thyroiditis and a return to normal ejection fraction 10 months after admission. CONCLUSION: In summary, we report a case of dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome with classical symptoms of fever, rash and multi-organ involvement including a rare manifestation of myocarditis. To our knowledge, this is the first case of dapsone-related hypersensitivity myocarditis not diagnosed in a post-mortem setting. As maloprim is widely used for malaria prophylaxis, clinicians need to be aware of this unusual but potentially serious association.

Attitudes and Practices on the Consent Process and Decision-making for Intravenous Stroke Thrombolysis: Physicians' Perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Earlier treatment with intravenous stroke thrombolysis improves outcomes and lowers risk of bleeding complications. The decision-making and consent process is one of the rate-limiting steps in the duration between hospital arrival and treatment initiation. We aim to describe the attitudes and practices of neurologists in Singapore on the consent and decision-making processes for stroke thrombolysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey of neurologists and neurologists-in-training in 2 large tertiary public hospitals in Singapore was conducted. RESULTS: Among 46 respondents, 94% of them considered stroke thrombolysis an emergency treatment and 67% of them indicated there is a need for written informed consent. The majority (87%) knew that from a legal perspective, the doctor should be the decision-maker in an emergency treatment for a mentally incapacitated patient. However, 63% of respondents reported that it is the next-of-kin who usually makes the decision in actual practice. If confronted with a mentally incapacitated stroke patient, 57% of them were willing to be the proxy decision-maker and 13% of them were not. In 3 commonly encountered vignettes when a mentally incapacitated patient was being considered for stroke thrombolysis, there was no clear consensus on the respondents' practices. CONCLUSION: The next-of-kin is usually the decision-maker for stroke thrombolysis in practice for a mentally incapacitated patient despite most doctors considering thrombolysis an emergency treatment. This, together with the lack of consensus and variance in decision-making and consent practice amongst neurologists for stroke thrombolysis, demonstrates the need to develop best practice guidelines to standardise healthcare practices for greater consistency in health service delivery.