Introduction. Fluindione (Previscan ) is an oral anticoagulant belonging to the vitamin K antagonist class and is very widely used in France. While bleeding is a common complication, severe immunoallergic reactions ...Introduction. Fluindione (Previscan ) is an oral anticoagulant belonging to the vitamin K antagonist class and is very widely used in France. While bleeding is a common complication, severe immunoallergic reactions are less frequent. The authors report a case of drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome. Case report. A 75 year-old woman was hospitalized for diffuse erythematous papular rash associated with facial oedema. These symptoms appeared 3 weeks after the beginning of treatment with fluindione, allopurinol and perindopril. Laboratory tests showed hyperleukocytosis, mixed hepatitis and moderate renal failure, with the entire picture being evocative of drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction. The eruption was associated with eosinophilia, hepatic cytolysis with cholestasis, and acute renale failure. While allopurinol and perindopril were stopped definitively, fluindione was only suspended temporarily following overdosage. On reintroduction, rapid recurrence of clinical and biologic signs was observed with increased severity. The skin rash resolved completely on withdrawal of the drug. Patch tests performed later were positive for fluindione and negative for allopurinol and perindopril. Discussion. These manifestations were consistent with the diagnosis of drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome due to fluindione. Very few cases have been described with fluindione despite widespread prescription of the treatment is in France. While there may be no skin involvement, immunoallergic signs such as fever, hepatitis and acute tubular interstitial nephritis have been described with fluindione and these may be related to this syndrome (DRESS-Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms). Skin patch testing, which is easily performed, can be extremely helpful in determining a causal relationship with medication.展开更多
Introduction. Purpuric allergic contact dermatitis is a rare and poorly understood condition. Case report. A 27-year-old male patient with a personal history of atopic dermatitis since childhood consulted for chronic ...Introduction. Purpuric allergic contact dermatitis is a rare and poorly understood condition. Case report. A 27-year-old male patient with a personal history of atopic dermatitis since childhood consulted for chronic papular-purpuric rash present for 7 years. Moderate pruritus was seen. Profuse lesions were observed on the palms and soles and on the upper and lower limbs, with sparing of the trunk. These lesions consisted of purpuric papules, in some cases with crusts, forming large plaques. The clinical picture was initially suggestive of vasculitis, but this diagnosiswas ruled out by histological examination and laboratory tests. Skin patch tests were evocative of chromium-induced contact dermatitis. Retrospective directed history-taking confirmed the relevance of the latter test since it revealed regular wearing of leather clothing. Lasting cure was achieved following eradication of the allergen. Discussion. Reports of contact purpuric dermatitis are rare. This condition has been described principally for allergens consisting of rubber or dyes used in clothing. Our case was notable on account of the severity of the lesions, mimicking vasculitis, as well as the novelty of the incriminated allergen, chromium, found in leather garments. It underlines the value of routine skin patch tests in the event of chronic non-specific dermatitis. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of chromium-induced purpuric allergic contact dermatitis.展开更多
文摘Introduction. Fluindione (Previscan ) is an oral anticoagulant belonging to the vitamin K antagonist class and is very widely used in France. While bleeding is a common complication, severe immunoallergic reactions are less frequent. The authors report a case of drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome. Case report. A 75 year-old woman was hospitalized for diffuse erythematous papular rash associated with facial oedema. These symptoms appeared 3 weeks after the beginning of treatment with fluindione, allopurinol and perindopril. Laboratory tests showed hyperleukocytosis, mixed hepatitis and moderate renal failure, with the entire picture being evocative of drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction. The eruption was associated with eosinophilia, hepatic cytolysis with cholestasis, and acute renale failure. While allopurinol and perindopril were stopped definitively, fluindione was only suspended temporarily following overdosage. On reintroduction, rapid recurrence of clinical and biologic signs was observed with increased severity. The skin rash resolved completely on withdrawal of the drug. Patch tests performed later were positive for fluindione and negative for allopurinol and perindopril. Discussion. These manifestations were consistent with the diagnosis of drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome due to fluindione. Very few cases have been described with fluindione despite widespread prescription of the treatment is in France. While there may be no skin involvement, immunoallergic signs such as fever, hepatitis and acute tubular interstitial nephritis have been described with fluindione and these may be related to this syndrome (DRESS-Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms). Skin patch testing, which is easily performed, can be extremely helpful in determining a causal relationship with medication.
文摘Introduction. Purpuric allergic contact dermatitis is a rare and poorly understood condition. Case report. A 27-year-old male patient with a personal history of atopic dermatitis since childhood consulted for chronic papular-purpuric rash present for 7 years. Moderate pruritus was seen. Profuse lesions were observed on the palms and soles and on the upper and lower limbs, with sparing of the trunk. These lesions consisted of purpuric papules, in some cases with crusts, forming large plaques. The clinical picture was initially suggestive of vasculitis, but this diagnosiswas ruled out by histological examination and laboratory tests. Skin patch tests were evocative of chromium-induced contact dermatitis. Retrospective directed history-taking confirmed the relevance of the latter test since it revealed regular wearing of leather clothing. Lasting cure was achieved following eradication of the allergen. Discussion. Reports of contact purpuric dermatitis are rare. This condition has been described principally for allergens consisting of rubber or dyes used in clothing. Our case was notable on account of the severity of the lesions, mimicking vasculitis, as well as the novelty of the incriminated allergen, chromium, found in leather garments. It underlines the value of routine skin patch tests in the event of chronic non-specific dermatitis. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of chromium-induced purpuric allergic contact dermatitis.
