Systemic Versus Topical Corticosteroids in the Treatment of DRESS: A Retrospective Cohort Study Followed by a Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a severe systemic drug hypersensitivity syndrome with significant risks of mortality and long-term sequelae. Management is challenging; whilst systemic corticosteroids are generally regarded as standard of care, there is a suggestion that topical corticosteroids may be a safe alternative. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with DRESS treated with systemic corticosteroids and topical corticosteroids in an academic medical center. METHODS: The medical records of patients diagnosed with DRESS at the Singapore General Hospital between 2009 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. A secondary systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to further clarify the outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 94 patients with DRESS, 41 (44%) were treated with topical corticosteroids and 53 (56%) were treated with systemic corticosteroids. Patients receiving systemic corticosteroids were more likely to develop infective complications (32.1 vs 12.2%, p = 0.02). One-month and 12-month mortality, length of hospital stay, flares of DRESS, and viral reactivation were similar between the two groups. In our meta-analysis (six studies, n = 292), there were no significant differences in mortality or length of stay between patients treated with systemic or topical corticosteroids. LIMITATIONS: This study was a non-controlled retrospective cohort study and the allocation of treatment may have been influenced by the severity of disease. Results of the secondary meta-analysis are limited by the quality of included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Topical corticosteroids may be a safe and efficacious alternative to systemic corticosteroids in the treatment of mild-to-moderate DRESS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42021285691.

Incidence of thromboembolic and bleeding events in patients with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: An Asian multicenter retrospective cohort study in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: Real-world effectiveness and safety of antithrombotics in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients in Singapore has not been thoroughly studied. HYPOTHESIS: Users of various antithrombotics experience a significantly different risk of stroke and major bleed compared with warfarin users. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included patients age ≥ 21 years newly diagnosed with NVAF between July 2012 and September 2015. Using electronic medical records, data on patients' demographics, antithrombotics prescribed, and CHA2 DS2 -VASc and HAS-BLED risk factors were collected. Patients were followed for 1 year from diagnosis for the primary effectiveness and safety endpoints of incident stroke or systemic embolism and major bleed, respectively. The secondary safety endpoint was overall bleed. Hazard ratios (HR) were determined from Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 743 patients included, 224 were on warfarin, 156 on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), 277 on single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT), 28 on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), and 58 on no therapy. Mean age (±SD) was 68.7 ± 13.0 years. Compared with warfarin users, SAPT (adjusted [adj.] HR: 3.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-11.3) and DAPT users (adj. HR: 10.1, 95% CI: 1.51-67.2) were more likely to develop thromboembolic outcomes. Also, DOAC users (adj. HR: 0.304, 95% CI: 0.158-0.585), SAPT users (adj. HR: 0.142, 95% CI: 0.0680-0.295), and DAPT users (adj. HR: 0.112, 95% CI: 0.0146-0.857) were less likely to experience any bleed compared with warfarin users. CONCLUSIONS: SAPT and DAPT are less effective than warfarin in NVAF patients. DOACs may be considered in view of lower risk of overall bleed.