RESUMO

El alelo HLA B*57:01 es un marcador genético asociado con la hipersensibilidad al fármaco anti-retroviral abacavir (ABC) y su frecuencia en la población peruana todavía es desconocida. El objetivo fue identificar el alelo HLA B*57:01 en una población militar de Lima, Perú. Se reclutaron 43 personas viviendo con VIH (PVV) quienes aceptaron participar a través de un consentimiento informado. La detección del alelo HLA B*57:01 se realizó mediante RPC en tiempo real (RT-PCR). Asimismo, se determinó la carga viral (CV), el recuento de linfocitos CD4 y la genotipificación del VIH. Se identificaron dos casos positivos al alelo HLA B*57:01 (4,7%). Además, uno de ellos presentó múltiples mutaciones de resistencia a los anti-retrovirales (ARV), incluyendo ABC. Se demostró por primera vez en el Perú la presencia del alelo HLA B*57:01.

The HLA B*57:01 allele is a genetic marker associated with hypersensitivity to the antiretroviral Abacavir (ABC) and its frequency in the Peruvian population is still unknown. The objective was to identify the HLA B*57:01 allele in a military population from Lima, Peru. Forty three people living with HIV (PLWH) were recruited, who agreed to participate through informed consent. Detection of the HLA B*57:01 allele was performed by real-time PCR (RT-PCR). Likewise, viral load (VL), CD4 lymphocyte count and HIV genotyping were determined. Two cases positive for the HLA B*57:01 allele (4.7%) were identified. In addition, one of them had multiple resistance mutations to antiretrovirals (ARVs), including ABC. The presence of the HLA B*57:01 allele was demonstrated for the first time in Peru.

Assuntos

RESUMO

The aim of this study was to describe a case of a patient with ocular toxoplasmosis, which has resulted in Kyrieleis plaques formation (segmental periarteritis associated with severe inflammation) and later follow-up and alternative treatment due to documented allergy to sulfonamide. A 33-year-old Brazilian woman diagnosed with acute toxoplasmosis, initially treated with sulfonamide, developed a critical cutaneous rash. Cotrimoxazole was changed to clindamycin and pyrimethamine, and prednisone was started. The medication was maintained for 45 days. Four months later, she developed retinal lesions suggestive of toxoplasmosis with Kyrieleis plaques in the upper temporal vessels. Pyrimethamine, clindamycin, and prednisone were initiated until healing. She presented reactivation months later, and a suppressive treatment with pyrimethamine was instituted for one year. This is the first report to use the combination of clindamycin with pyrimethamine in the treatment and recurrence prophylaxis for OT in a documented allergy to sulfonamide.

Assuntos

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: In prostate cancer, androgens are key in the growth of both normal prostate and cancer cells. Abiraterone acetate inhibits CYP17, an important target in prostate cancer given its central role in the production of adrenal and tumor-derived androgens. Although abiraterone is generally well tolerated, common adverse effects such as hypertension, hypokalemia, and hepatotoxicity have been reported. CLINICAL CASE: We present the case of an 83-year-old Mexican man with high-volume EC IV prostate cancer resistant to castration, orchiectomy, and bone, liver, and lung metastases. First-line treatment with the CHAARTED scheme was indicated, by patient decision refuse chemotherapy treatment. On the fourth day of starting treatment, he developed pruritic erythematous macular skin lesions and urticaria on the posterior chest that resolved spontaneously. A generalized erythematous and pruritic maculopapular rash appeared 12 days after starting abiraterone, for which she was referred to allergies. MANAGEMENT AND RESULTS: An oral provocation test was performed for two days, presenting localized macular lesions eight hours after the administration of abiraterone. An oral desensitization protocol was carried out for ten days in which no hypersensitivity reactions were observed, thus achieving the successful administration of abiraterone.

Assuntos

Assuntos

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Objective: To characterize drug hypersensitivity associated with dental treatments. Material and Methods: Data from 5,302 dental patients extracted from the Faculty of Dental Medicine were used to investigate drug use history, drug hypersensitivity, and associations with oral health outcomes. The chi-square test was used, and values of p ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: The frequency of patients' self-reported drug hypersensitivity was 26.42% (n = 1,401). The highest frequencies were for opioid/narcotic analgesics (20.84%, n = 292), antibiotics (18.13%, n = 961), and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (10.46%, n = 141). Most of the patients (68.65%, n = 3,640) reported using medications, mostly for cardiovascular disease (43.1%, n = 1,569), for psychiatric/neurological disorders (39.75%, n = 1,447), drugs that affect the endocrine system (32.55%, n= 1,185), and drugs for pain (24.92%, n = 907). Higher drug hypersensitivity frequencies were associated with older White female subjects (p<0.0001). Associations were also identified between drug hypersensitivity and history of the following dental procedures: tooth extractions (p=0.003), root canal treatment (p=0.0004), prosthodontic treatments (p<0.0001), and orthodontic treatments (p=0.007). Conclusion: A high frequency of self-reported drug hypersensitivity in dental patients was found, with a higher occurrence in older White women and those with a history of more extensive and invasive dental care.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Objective: Identify the causative agent of POH, to avoid re-exposure and assess the use of alternative treatment. Methods: 10 cases of immediate POH are described, in all of them a history of previous surgical procedures, carrying out a 3-step protocol: 1st documenting the surgical record to identify exposures, 2nd performing skin and/or epicutaneous tests and 3rd searching for an alternative treatment. treatment if a new surgical procedure is required and in selected cases challenge tests. Results: Of a total of 10 patients with immediate POH, tests were performed according to the case: neuromuscular blockers, anesthetics, opioids, NSAIDs, anti- biotics, diuretics, latex, isodine, and chlorhexidine; finding positive tests in 7 (70%) patients: in 4 (40%) neuromuscular blockers, one of them also positive for latex, in 2 (20%) anesthetics and finally finding a pharmacological alternative in 2 (2%) and recommending free operating room latex in 2 cases (20%), the rest (30%) were classified as related to the surgical procedure and medication management. Conclusions: The study of POH is focused on ensuring safety in subsequent exposures, so in addition to identifying the causative agent, the role of the allergist also leads to a search for a safe alternative in patient management.

Objetivo: Identificar agente causal de POH, para evitar reexposición y valorar uso de alternativa de tratamiento. Métodos: Se describen 10 casos de POH inmediata, en todos antecedente de procedimientos quirúrgicos previos, realizándose protocolo de 3 pasos: 1°docu- mentar registro quirúrgico para identificar exposiciones, 2° realización de pruebas cutáneas y/o epicutáneas y 3° búsqueda de alternativa de tratamiento en caso de requerir nuevo procedimiento quirúrgico y en casos seleccionados pruebas de reto. Resultados: De un total de 10 pacientes con POH inmediata, se realizaron pruebas según el caso: bloqueadores neuromusculares, anestésicos, opioides, AINE, antibióticos, diuréticos, látex, isodine y clorhexidina; encontrando pruebas positivas en 7 pacientes (70%): en 4 (40%) bloqueadores neuromusculares, uno de ellos también positivo para látex, en 2 (20%) anestésicos y finalmente encontrando alternativa farmacológica en 2 (2%) y recomendando quirófano libre de látex en 2 casos (20%), el resto (30%) fueron catalogados como relacionados con procedimiento quirúrgico y manejo de medicamentos. Conclusiones: El estudio de las POH está enfocado en asegurar seguridad en exposiciones posteriores, por lo que además de la identificación de agente causal, el papel del alergólogo también conlleva a una búsqueda de alternativa segura en el manejo del paciente.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Objectives: To confirm the presence of allergy to penicillin and amoxicillin by in vivo exposure tests in patients with a history of immediate reaction to these drugs. Methods: Observational, cross-sectional, descriptive and prolective study. Patients between 12 and 60 years old with a history of immediate reaction after administration of penicillin and/or amoxicillin were included. Skin prick and intradermal tests were performed with benzylpenicilloyl polylysine and penicillin G, as well as oral challenge with amoxicillin. Results: Ten female and 3 male patients were included. The mean age was 39 years. In 84.6% of the cases the last adverse drug reaction occurred 10 years ago and in all cases it manifested with urticaria. Allergy to penicillin was corroborated in only 38.4% of cases. The most frequent adverse reaction after in vivo exposure tests was pruritus in 23%. Conclusions: Patients with suspected penicillin allergy should be evaluated by in vivo exposure testing with major and minor determinants to corroborate or rule out allergic reactions and improve treatment conditions.

Objetivos: Confirmar la presencia de alergia a penicilina y amoxicilina mediante pruebas de exposición in vivo, en pacientes que refieren antecedente de reacción inmediata con estos medicamentos. Métodos: Estudio observacional, transversal, descriptivo y prolectivo. Se incluyeron pacientes entre 12 y 60 años con antecedente de reacción inmediata tras administración de penicilina y/o amoxicilina. Se realizaron pruebas cutáneas por prick e intradérmicas con bencilpeniciloil polilisina y penicilina G, así como desafío oral con amoxicilina. Resultados: Se incluyeron 10 pacientes femeninos y 3 masculinos. La edad promedio fue 39 años. En 84,6% de los casos la última reacción adversa a medica- mentos ocurrió 10 años atrás y en todos los casos se manifestó con urticaria. Sólo en el 38,4% se corroboró alergia a penicilina. La reacción adversa más frecuen- te, tras las pruebas de exposición in vivo fue prurito en el 23%. Conclusiones: Los pacientes con sospecha de alergia a penicilina se deben evaluar mediante pruebas de exposición in vivo con los determinantes mayores y menores, para corroborar o descartar reacciones alérgicas y mejorar las condiciones de tratamiento.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Background: Perioperative anaphylaxis can be life-threatening. The global incidence is estimated to be 1 in 10,000-20,000 procedures. The most common agents are neuromuscular blockers, latex, and antibiotics. There are very few reports of allergies to inhaled anesthetics such as sevoflurane, which is considered relatively safe in patients with drug allergies. Case report: 12-year-old patient, admitted to oncology, diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. History of two perioperative hypersensitivity reactions. In the first event, lidocaine and rupivacaine were administered, he presented urticaria, managed with an antihistamine. On the second occasion, he received only sevoflurane and presented anaphylaxis, treated with intramuscular adrenaline. Later during intrathecal therapy, he received sevoflurane, he presented rash and arterial hypotension, managed again with adrenaline, with total remission of symptoms. Retrospectively Brighton criteria level I of certainty, classified as serious by Brown. Hypersensitivity to sevoflurane was suspected, ruling out other anesthetics such as lidocaine and rupivacaine with negative intradermal skin tests. Molecular components for latex were requested with negative results for Hev b 1, Hev b 3, Hev b 6. Due to the above and associated with the characteristics of the drug, a basophil activation test for sevoflurane was performed with an activation percentage of 50% (positive). Perioperative anaphylaxis due to sevoflurane is confirmed. Conclusion: All drugs involved in perioperative hypersensitivity reactions should be considered to establish adequate and safe treatment alternatives for this small group of patients.

Antecedentes: La anafilaxia perioperatoria puede amenazar la vida del paciente. La incidencia global se estima 1 entre 10.000-20.000 procedimientos. Los agen- tes más frecuentes son bloqueadores neuromusculares, látex y antibióticos. Hay muy pocos reportes de alergia a anestésicos inhalados como el sevoflurano, el cual se considera relativamente seguro en pacientes con alergia a fármacos. Reporte de caso: Paciente de 12 años, ingresó en oncología, diagnóstico de leucemia linfoblástica aguda. Antecedente de dos reacciones de hipersensibilidad perioperatorias. En primer evento se administró lidocaína y rupivacaína, presentó urticaria, manejado con antihistamínico. Segunda ocasión recibió sólo sevo- fluorano y presentó anafilaxia, tratado con adrenalina intramuscular. Posteriormente durante terapia intratecal, recibió sevoflurano, presentó rash e hipotensión arterial, manejo nuevamente con adrenalina, con remisión total de síntomas. Retrospectivamente criterios de Brighton nivel I de certeza, clasificada grave por Brown. Se sospechó hipersensibilidad a sevoflurano, descartando otros anestésicos como lidocaína y rupivacaina con pruebas cutáneas intradérmicas negativas. Se solicitaron componentes moleculares para látex con resultados negativos para Hev b 1, Hev b 3, Hev b 6. Por lo anterior y asociado a las características del fármaco se realiza prueba de activación de basófilos para sevoflurano con un porcentaje de activación del 50% (positivo). Se confirma anafilaxia perioperatoria por sevoflurano. Conclusión: Deben considerarse todos los fármacos involucrados en las reacciones de hipersensibilidad perioperatoria, para establecer alternativas adecuadas y seguras de tratamiento de este pequeño grupo de pacientes.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Background: The most commonly reported antibiotic allergy is penicillin. The false label of "allergy" to penicillin negatively affects the patient's quality of life and medical care. Objective: To determine the frequency of allergy to penicillin and amoxicillin by in vivo exposure tests in patients with a history of immediate reaction to this class of medicinal products. Methods: Observational, cross-sectional, descriptive and prolective study in patients between 12 and 60 years of age with a history of immediate reaction to penicillin and/or amoxicillin. Prick and intradermal skin tests were performed with benzylpenicilloyl polylysine (Pre-Pen), penicillin G and oral challenge test with amoxicillin. The frequency of positivity and negativity in these tests was calculated with a 95% CI. Results were analyzed in Epi info 7.2.5.0. Results: In total 13 patients (10 women) were included, with a mean age of 39 years (SD 12.14). In 84.6% the last adverse drug reaction occurred 10 years ago and in all manifested with urticaria. The 38.4% confirmed penicillin allergy and the most frequent adverse reaction after in vivo tests was pruritus. Conclusions: The clinical history alone is not sufficient, all patients with suspected penicillin allergy should be evaluated by in vivo exposure tests with major and minor determinants to corroborate or rule out allergy to this pharmacological class.

Antecedentes: La alergia a antibióticos notificada con más frecuencia es la penicilina. La falsa etiqueta de "alergia" a la penicilina afecta negativamente la calidad de vida del paciente y la atención médica. Objetivo: Determinar la frecuencia de alergia a penicilina y amoxicilina mediante pruebas de exposición in vivo, en pacientes con antecedente de reacción inmediata a esta clase de medicamentos. Métodos: Estudio observacional, transversal, descriptivo y prolectivo en pacientes entre 12 y 60 años con antecedente de reacción inmediata a penicilina y/o amoxicilina. Se realizaron pruebas cutáneas por prick e intradérmicas con bencilpeniciloil polilisina y penicilina G, y prueba de reto oral con amoxicilina. La frecuencia de positividad y negatividad en estas pruebas fue calculado con un IC del 95%. Los resultados se analizaron en Epi info 7.2.5.0. Resultados: Se incluyeron 13 pacientes (10 mujeres), con una media de edad de 39 años (DE 12.14) y diagnóstico predominante de rinitis alérgica (61,5%). En 84,6% de casos la última reacción adversa a medicamentos ocurrió 10 años atrás y en todos se manifestó con urticaria. Sólo en cinco pacientes (38,4%) se corroboró alergia a penicilina y la reacción adversa más frecuente tras las pruebas in vivo fue prurito (23 %). Conclusiones: La historia clínica por sí sola no es suficiente, todos los pacientes con sospecha de alergia a penicilina deben ser evaluados mediante pruebas de exposición in vivo con los determinantes mayores y menores para corroborar o descartar alergia a esta clase farmacológica.

Assuntos

Assuntos