Abstract:Background: A severe adverse reaction to sulfasalazine therapy has been associated with hypersensitivity syndrome, the clinical features of which are similar to infectious mononucleosis. No serologic evidence of viral infections has been reported with this syndrome; however, human herpesvirus 6 infection has not been specifically investigated, which could cause an infectious mononucleosislike syndrome.Observations: We report 2 cases of hypersensitivity syndrome induced by the use of sulfasalazine. The clinical… Show more
“…However, the decision as to whether antigen presentation stimulates an immune response, seems to be determined by the extent of co-stimulation (danger), and not hapten density. These data are consistent with recent case reports where hypersensitivity to sulphasalazine was associated with the reactivation of human herpesvirus 6 (Suzuki et al, 1998;Tohyama et al, 1998).…”
Section: British Journal Of Pharmacology Vol 133 (2)supporting
1 Sulphamethoxazole has been associated with the occurrence of hypersensitivity reactions. There is controversy as to whether the immune response is metabolism-dependent or -independent. We have therefore investigated the site of antigen formation and the nature of the drug signal presented to the immune system in vivo. 2 Male Wistar rats were dosed with sulphamethoxazole, sulphamethoxazole hydroxylamine or nitroso sulphamethoxazole. Antigen formation on cell surfaces was determined byÂŻow cytometry using a speciÂźc anti-sulphamethoxazole antibody. Immunogenicity was determined by assessment of ex vivo T-cell proliferation. 3 Administration of nitroso sulphamethoxazole, but not sulphamethoxazole or sulphamethoxazole hydroxylamine, resulted in antigen formation on the surface of lymphocytes, splenocytes and epidermal keratinocytes, and a strong proliferative response of splenocytes on re-stimulation with nitroso sulphamethoxazole. Rats dosed with sulphamethoxazole or sulphamethoxazole hydroxylamine did not respond to any of the test compounds. 4 CD4 + or CD8 + depleted cells responded equally to nitroso sulphamethoxazole. The proliferative response to nitroso sulphamethoxazole was seen even after pulsing for only 5 min, and was not inhibited by glutathione. Responding cells produced IFN-g, but not IL-4. 5 Haptenation of cells by sulphamethoxazole hydroxylamine was seen after depletion of glutathione by pre-treating the rats with diethyl maleate. Splenocytes from the glutathione-depleted sulphamethoxazole hydroxylamine-treated rats responded weakly to nitroso sulphamethoxazole, but not to sulphamethoxazole or sulphamethoxazole hydroxylamine. 6 Dosing of rats with sulphamethoxazole produced a cellular response to nitroso sulphamethoxazole (but not to sulphamethoxazole or its hydroxylamine) when the animals were primed with complete Freund's adjuvant. 7 These studies demonstrate the antigenicity of nitroso sulphamethoxazole in vivo and provide evidence for the role of drug metabolism and cell surface haptenation in the induction of a cellular immune response in the rat.
“…However, the decision as to whether antigen presentation stimulates an immune response, seems to be determined by the extent of co-stimulation (danger), and not hapten density. These data are consistent with recent case reports where hypersensitivity to sulphasalazine was associated with the reactivation of human herpesvirus 6 (Suzuki et al, 1998;Tohyama et al, 1998).…”
Section: British Journal Of Pharmacology Vol 133 (2)supporting
1 Sulphamethoxazole has been associated with the occurrence of hypersensitivity reactions. There is controversy as to whether the immune response is metabolism-dependent or -independent. We have therefore investigated the site of antigen formation and the nature of the drug signal presented to the immune system in vivo. 2 Male Wistar rats were dosed with sulphamethoxazole, sulphamethoxazole hydroxylamine or nitroso sulphamethoxazole. Antigen formation on cell surfaces was determined byÂŻow cytometry using a speciÂźc anti-sulphamethoxazole antibody. Immunogenicity was determined by assessment of ex vivo T-cell proliferation. 3 Administration of nitroso sulphamethoxazole, but not sulphamethoxazole or sulphamethoxazole hydroxylamine, resulted in antigen formation on the surface of lymphocytes, splenocytes and epidermal keratinocytes, and a strong proliferative response of splenocytes on re-stimulation with nitroso sulphamethoxazole. Rats dosed with sulphamethoxazole or sulphamethoxazole hydroxylamine did not respond to any of the test compounds. 4 CD4 + or CD8 + depleted cells responded equally to nitroso sulphamethoxazole. The proliferative response to nitroso sulphamethoxazole was seen even after pulsing for only 5 min, and was not inhibited by glutathione. Responding cells produced IFN-g, but not IL-4. 5 Haptenation of cells by sulphamethoxazole hydroxylamine was seen after depletion of glutathione by pre-treating the rats with diethyl maleate. Splenocytes from the glutathione-depleted sulphamethoxazole hydroxylamine-treated rats responded weakly to nitroso sulphamethoxazole, but not to sulphamethoxazole or sulphamethoxazole hydroxylamine. 6 Dosing of rats with sulphamethoxazole produced a cellular response to nitroso sulphamethoxazole (but not to sulphamethoxazole or its hydroxylamine) when the animals were primed with complete Freund's adjuvant. 7 These studies demonstrate the antigenicity of nitroso sulphamethoxazole in vivo and provide evidence for the role of drug metabolism and cell surface haptenation in the induction of a cellular immune response in the rat.
“…Of these reactions, HHV-6 reactivation in adults has been reported in druginduced HS [19][20][21][22][23][24] . However, in the present study, anti-HHV-6 titers increased also in some female patients suffering from diseases of erythema multiforme spectrum.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is the first report showing that human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6), the causative virus of exanthema subitum [16][17][18] , the reactivation of which has been reported in patients with drug-induced HS [19][20][21][22][23][24] , can also be reactivated in those having developed skin disorders after occupational solvent exposure.…”
This study aimed at clarifying whether infectious diseases contributed to the development of rash or hepatitis in patients with trichloroethylene-related generalized skin disorders. Fifty-nine patients consecutively hospitalized between March 2002 and December 2003 and 59 healthy exposed workers selected on an age-matched basis in the patients' factories were enrolled in the study. Information on possible risk factors for rash and hepatitis was collected with structured checklists. Antibody titers were measured for hepatitis A, B and C viruses, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, herpes simplex viruses 1 and 2, Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, human herpesvirus 6, measles and rubella virus. Thirty-six cases (59%) showed exfoliative dermatitis, 17 (28%) erythema multiforme, 4 (7%) StevensJohnson syndrome, and 4 (7%) toxic epidermal necrolysis. Before the onset of rash, 16 (27%) cases had received medication prescribed for the preceding fever, a main first symptom of the disorders. Marked increases in anti-human herpesvirus 6 IgG titer (â„256), which indicated viral reactivation, were noted in 14 (25%) patients, while no abnormal increase was detected in the controls (p<0.001). Anti-measles IgM titer was positive in 2 (7%) cases but not in the controls (p=0.49). The involvement of other known risk factors of rash or hepatitis was ruled out. These results suggest that part of trichloroethylene-related generalized cutaneous disorders occurring in China and drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome overlap in terms of human herpesvirus 6 reactivation. (J Occup Health 2006; 48: 417-423)
“…Published case reports and small series have pointed to oral prednisolone to treat DRESS as probably the most accepted intervention in the treatment of severe drug reactions: 1-1.5 mg kg -1 has been recommended but we have seen efficacious responses to 0.5 mg kg -1 (unpublished) with rapid resolution of rash and fever. The association with human-herpes virus-6 (HHV-6) re-activation characteristically 2 weeks after rash onset, was recognized in the late 1990s [32,54,55] and has been proposed as an explanation for the characteristic flaring seen in this condition [56] although precise explanation of the role of the virus in the disease remains unclear. Careful monitoring for potential viral reactivation is therefore essential, but it should be noted that sporadic reports have identified reactivation of other herpes viruses as well (EBV, CMV, HHV-6, HHV-7, HSV, VZV) [31].…”
Cutaneous adverse drug reactions range from mild to severe and from those localized only to skin to those associated with systemic disease. It is important to distinguish features of cutaneous drug reactions which help classify the underlying mechanism and likely prognosis as both of these influence management decisions, some of which necessarily have to be taken rapidly. Severe cutaneous reactions are generally T cell-mediated, yet this immunological process is frequently poorly understood and principles for identification of the culprit drug are different to those of IgE mediated allergic reactions. Furthermore, intervention in severe skin manifestations of drug allergy is frequently necessary. However, a substantial literature reports on success or otherwise of glucocorticoids, cyclophsphamide, ciclosporin, intravenous immunoglobulin and anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy for the treatment of toxic epidermal necrolysis without clear consensus. As well as reviewing the recommended supportive measures and evidence base for interventions, this review aims to provide a mechanistic overview relating to a proposed clinical classification to assist the assessment and management of these complex patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citationsâcitations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.