2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.jid.2017.01.031
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Epidemiology of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis in the UK

Abstract: Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are rare but life-threatening mucocutaneous diseases. SJS/TEN mostly manifest as a reaction to new drug use, but little is known about their incidence and epidemiology. We conducted a large observational study on the epidemiology of SJS/TEN using data from the UK-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Among 551 validated SJS/TEN patients, we calculated an incidence rate of 5.76 SJS/TEN cases per million person-years between 1995 and 2013, … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

7
95
3
9

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 144 publications
(114 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
7
95
3
9
Order By: Relevance
“…< 20 years old) and middle‐aged people (i.e. 20–64 years old), which agrees with previous studies . The five‐fold increase in mortality in individuals ≥ 65 years of age in comparison with individuals 20–64 years old is higher than the two‐ to three‐fold increase reported in other studies …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…< 20 years old) and middle‐aged people (i.e. 20–64 years old), which agrees with previous studies . The five‐fold increase in mortality in individuals ≥ 65 years of age in comparison with individuals 20–64 years old is higher than the two‐ to three‐fold increase reported in other studies …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…estimation in the U.K. (i.e. 5·76 cases per million inhabitants per year) in which incidence rates were adjusted on a previously calculated positive‐predictive value for the codes used in order to minimize the bias of misclassification and a possible overestimation of incidence . Our results are also close to those published by Velasco‐Tirado et al .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…In this database study, the well‐known risk of SJS/TEN risk in association with AED may lead physician to overdiagnose SJS/TEN in AED users, which may have led to the inclusion of some false‐positive cases, and thus to slightly overestimated ORs. However, our results were similar to prior results, which provides confidence in the validity of our cases . Second, the proportion of cases who were recently exposed to AEDs was lower in our study (7.5%) than in the two previous studies (both 25%), which may partially be explained by the use of different AEDs over time and by the decreasing use of phenobarbital.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…In addition to underestimated ORs, this limitation could also have affected the assessment of concomitant use of other high‐risk drugs for ALDEN in some cases. However, in a previous study based in the same study population, we observed increased risk of SJS/TEN only among patients with a diagnosis of epilepsy as well as a recent new prescription (≤84 days) of an AED, but not in epilepsy patients in the absence of such a prescription, suggesting that bias due to unobserved AED treatment is low in our study popyulation ,. Third, because ALDEN automatically grades causality higher for drugs with previous evidence for an association with SJS/TEN, the assessed likelihood for a causal association could potentially be underestimated for newer AEDs that have not previously been associated with SJS/TEN.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 57%
“…Since the patient have not taken any other suspicious drugs beside crizotinib, both before and during the development of skin lesions, we consider TEN was most likely induced by crizotinib. It was reported that Blacks and Asian patients were at a higher risk than Caucasian (10). Some researchers found a strong association between HLA genotype and SJS/TEN in Han Chinese (11,12).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%