Ustekinumab therapy for Crohn's disease during pregnancy: a case report and review of the literature.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVES: The safety of continued ustekinumab (UST) therapy during pregnancy remains unclear in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). There are no meta-analysis reports of exposure to UST during pregnancy. The objective was to describe a case of a pregnant patient with CD who was successfully treated with UST maintenance therapy throughout the pregnancy and delivered a baby boy without any congenital malformations, neurological abnormalities or birth defects. CASE SUMMARY: A 37-year-old patient with CD treated with UST became pregnant. She had been receiving UST for 8 months at the time. After discussion with the patient and the obstetric team, the UST therapy was continued. The result of treatment was an uneventful pregnancy with delivery, at term, of a healthy boy and the maintenance of clinical, biological and endoscopic remission of CD during and after pregnancy. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first reported use of continued UST therapy for CD throughout a pregnancy. The result of treatment was an uncomplicated pregnancy with the mother giving birth to a healthy boy at term and the maintenance of clinical biological and endoscopic remission of CD during and after pregnancy.

Hyperhidrosis related to nevirapine therapy.

A 70-year-old white man presented to the internal medicine outpatient clinic with symptoms of significant hyperhidrosis. He had been started on antiretroviral therapy (ART) with tenofovir, lamivudine and nevirapine. The patient complained of excessive sweating following severe asthenia after taking nevirapine. Based on these findings, we suspected that the causative agent was nevirapine and a diagnosis of hyperhidrosis due to nevirapine was made. Nevirapine treatment was stopped and was substituted with efavirenz: the patient continued on therapy with tenofovir and lamivudine. The hyperhidrosis symptoms resolved in 2-3 days. No relapse was observed with the new ART regimen. Drugs that induce hyperhidrosis can cause patient discomfort and embarrassment. In our patient, this adverse drug reaction also caused severe asthenia that decreased the patient's physical and emotional quality of life. There was a temporal relationship between the developments of symptoms and starting nevirapine therapy. Once nevirapine was suspended and switched to efavirenz, excessive sweating resolved. An objective causality assessment revealed that the adverse effect was probable. Until further data are available, clinicians should consider discontinuation of nevirapine therapy in patients who develop severe hyperhidrosis.

Foot ischaemia and toe skin necrosis associated with interleukin-2 infusion in an HIV-infected patient.

A 39-year-old white man developed a severe left toe foot ischaemia and toe skin necrosis following his 12 courses of interleukin (IL)-2 (4.5 MIU twice a day, subcutaneously) for five days every two months. He had no known general risk factors for thrombosis other than HIV infection. An arterial Doppler ultrasound examination of the leg confirmed the permeability of the posterior tibial artery and its digital pulse. A diagnosis of foot ischaemia and toe skin necrosis was made. The suspected causative agent was IL-2 since this was the only drug that the patient was taking before the symptoms appeared. The patient was empirically treated with an aspirin and pentoxifylline in order to improve local microcirculation. We observed a satisfactory response with a quick resolve of skin lesions. The most possible cause of foot ischaemia and toe skin necrosis was considered to be IL-2 because of the temporal relationship between the exposure to the drug and onset of symptoms. Based on the Naranjo probability scale, IL-2 could be considered the probable cause of the foot ischaemia and toe skin necrosis. If clinical evaluation leads to the suspicion of ischaemic process, therapy with IL-2 should be discontinued immediately.

Adverse cutaneous reactions associated with the newest antiretroviral drugs in patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection.

HIV-infected patients have a higher risk of developing cutaneous reactions than the general population, which has a significant impact on patients' current and future care options. The severity of cutaneous adverse reactions varies greatly, and some may be difficult to manage. HIV-infected patients just at the beginning of antiretroviral treatment can frequently show a wide variety of adverse drug effects such as drug rashes, hyperpigmentation, hair loss, hypersensitivity reactions, injection site reaction, urticarial reaction, erythema multiforme, toxic epidermal necrolysis or Stevens-Johnson syndrome. The early detection and treatment of cutaneous adverse drug reactions, plus identification of the causative agent, are essential to prevent the progression of the reaction, preventing additional exposures and ensuring the appropriate use of medications for the current condition and keeping in mind others, such as patient age. This article emphasizes the most common features of an antiretroviral drug-induced cutaneous reaction from protease inhibitors, non-nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors, fusion inhibitors, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, integrase inhibitors and inhibitors of the CCR5 chemokine receptor, paying special attention to the newest drugs approved for the treatment of HIV infection, such as tipranavir, darunavir, etravirine, enfuvirtide, raltegravir and maraviroc.

Septic shock and community-acquired pneumonia associated with etanercept therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To report a case of septic shock and community-acquired pneumonia in a patient with psoriatic arthritis receiving treatment with etanercept. PATIENT DETAILS: A 65-year-old woman diagnosed as having psoriatic arthritis had received treatment with etanercept. Chest X-ray studies were normal and the tuberculin skin test was negative. Two months after etanercept therapy, the patient presented to our emergency department with fever, cough, chest pain and generalized weakness. Chest radiography revealed a right pulmonary infiltrate. Her condition rapidly deteriorated and she went into shock with a further drop in her blood pressure, tachycardia and tachypnea. She was intubated, mechanically ventilated and was treated with fluids, cardioversion and amiodarone. Empiric therapy with levofloxacin, amikacin and cefepime were initiated. In the urinalysis, the result of a rapid test for Streptococcus pneumoniae was positive. Etanercept treatment was suspended due to a possible adverse reaction associated with this drug. At the start of therapy her clinical condition improved slowly. On Day 28, the patient was afebrile and she was discharged from the intensive care unit. DISCUSSION: Most of the infections associated with etanercept therapy have been reported in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Based on our observations, etanercept was the possible offender in the development of septic shock and respiratory failure in community-acquired pneumonia. There was a temporal relationship between exposure to the drug and onset of symptoms. Etanercept was the only drug administered before the septic shock developed. Based on the Naranjo algorithm, the adverse reaction could be considered possible. CONCLUSION: Patients initiated on etanercept should be counseled and receive appropriate screening before drug initiation. All febrile and newly occurring concomitant illnesses should be promptly evaluated. General practitioners should discontinue etanercept treatment and institute prompt and aggressive intervention if infection develops.

Successful desensitization protocol for hypersensitivity reactions caused by oxaliplatin.

OBJECTIVE: To report the successful desensitization of a patient with a hypersensitivity reaction to oxaliplatin. CASE SUMMARY: A 57-year-old woman with metastatic colon cancer was receiving oxaliplatin, fluorouracil and leucovorin every 2 weeks and showed a partial response to therapy. During the fourth cycle, an anaphylactic reaction with palpitations and rash occurred. The patient was hypotensive with mild pulmonary wheezing. Since oxaliplatin was the probable cause of the hypersensitivity reaction, therapy with this drug was discontinued. Therapy in the patient was continued using cetuximab and irinotecan but this resulted in progression of the cancer. In view of the initial satisfactory response to the oxaliplatin-based regimen, it was decided to attempt desensitization to oxaliplatin using a protocol adapted from carboplatin regimens. The desensitization procedure was successful and the patient subsequently tolerated an additional three cycles using this regimen without further symptoms of hypersensitivity. DISCUSSION: In cases with moderate-to-severe reactions to oxaliplatin, reexposure is not usually considered. However, a need to use first-line therapy when there is recurrence of the cancer has encouraged the development of rapid desensitization procedures which allow patients to be treated with medications to which they have previously shown hypersensitivity reactions. A combination of premedication using intravenous dexamethasone and a desensitization regimen was designed which was used successfully to increase concentrations and flow rates of oxaliplatin. CONCLUSIONS: Hypersensitivity reactions to oxaliplatin are not rare and physicians need to be aware of these. When substitution of another antineoplastic drug is not feasible, oxaliplatin desensitization should be considered even when hypersensitivity reactions to oxaliplatin are severe.

Possible delayed onset of osteonecrosis of the jaw in association with zoledronic acid.

OBJECTIVE: To report a case of possible delayed-onset osteonecrosis of the jaw after treatment with zoledronic acid. CASE SUMMARY: A 53-year-old white man with no history of allergic drug reactions had been diagnosed as having bronchial epidermoid carcinoma. He received therapy with docetaxel and zoledronate. Because of metastatic progression of the disease, he started treatment with irinotecan and zoledronate. The patient received 18 monthly cycles of zoledronate. One year after the last cycle of bisphosphonate therapy, the patient had one tooth extracted. Three weeks later, he complained of continuous mandibular pain and swallowing difficulties. A diagnosis of osteonecrosis of the jaw was made. Surgical treatment was chosen, with debridement and a mucosal flap, complemented with antibiotic therapy. Other potential aetiologic risk factors for osteonecrosis were investigated and could not be identified. Accordingly, a diagnosis of possible delayed onset jaw osteonecrosis associated with zoledronate was made. DISCUSSION: Osteonecrosis of the jaws has recently emerged as a potential complication of bisphosphonate therapy in patients with metastatic cancer undergoing dental surgery. This is the first report of possible delayed-onset osteonecrosis of the jaw associated with zoledronate. Patients appear to remain at low risk of developing osteonecrosis even in the absence of zoledronate, especially after a dental extraction or oral surgery. Based on the Naranjo algorithm the adverse reaction was classed as possible.

Possible macular exanthema associated with linezolid therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To report a case of macular exanthema associated with linezolid therapy. CASE SUMMARY: A 54-year-old white man diagnosed as having laryngeal epidermoid carcinoma attended our emergency department because of fatigue, fever, neck pain and a fistulized fixed mass in the right side of the neck with purulent exudation. Treatment with amoxicillin/clavulanic acid 875 mg/125 mg p.o. every 8 hours as empirical therapy was started. Cultures of the exudates from the fistula confirmed the presence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid was discontinued and therapy was started with linezolid 600 mg p.o. every 12 hours but 5 days after commencing linezolid the patient came to our emergency room because of generalized erythematous macular eruptions. A diagnosis of severe and generalized macular exanthema induced by linezolid was made. Administration of linezolid was suspended and there was an improvement in the skin lesions and general state of health. The patient was discharged without further symptoms. DISCUSSION: In this case, there was a close temporal correlation between drug exposure and the onset of symptoms. When linezolid was discontinued, the skin lesions resolved quickly and the general condition of the patient improved. Furthermore, linezolid was the only drug added before the cutaneous lesions appeared. It is possible that the adverse reaction was associated with administration of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. However, the patient had been treated with this antibiotic previously without appearance of any cutaneous reaction. An objective causality assessment revealed that an adverse effect was possible. CONCLUSION: Based on our observations, we conclude that linezolid was the most likely cause of the adverse reaction. Clinicians should be aware of this infrequent but severe reaction.