Etiology and pathogenesis of adverse drug reactions

In clinical routine, adverse drug reactions (ADR) are common, and they should be included in the differential diagnosis in all patients undergoing drug treatment. Only part of those ADR are immune-mediated hypersensitivity reactions and thus true drug allergies. Far more common are non-immune-mediated ADR, e.g. due to the pharmacological properties of the drug or to the individual predisposition of the patient (enzymopathies, cytokine dysbalance, mast cell hyperreactivity). In true drug allergiesT cell- and immunoglobulin E (lgE)-mediated reactions dominate the clinical presentation. T cell-mediated ADR usually have a delayed appearance and include skin eruptions in most cases. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that they may involve systemic T cell activation and thus take a severe, sometimes lethal turn. Clinical danger signs are involvement of mucosal surfaces, blistering within the exanthematous skin areas and systemic symptoms, e.g. fever or malaise. Drug presentation via antigen-presenting cells to T cells can either involve the classical pathway of haptenization of endogenous proteins or be directly mediated via noncovalent binding to immune receptors (MHC molecules or T cell receptors), the so-called p-i concept. Flare-up reactions during the acute phase of T cell-mediated ADR should not be mistaken for true drug allergies, as they only occur in the setting of a highly activated T cell pool. IgE-mediated ADR are less frequent and involve mast cells and/or basophils as peripheral effector cells. Recent data suggest that certain patients with drug allergy have a preexistent sensitization although they have never been exposed to the culprit drug, probably due to cross-reactivity. Thus, allergic drug reactions on first encounter are possible. In general, the extent of cross-reactivity is higher in IgE-compared to T cell-mediated ADR. Based on a specific ethnic background and only for severe T cell-mediated ADR to certain drugs, a strong HLA association has been established recently.

[Pharmacotherapy of hyperthyreosis--adverse drug reactions]

The antithyroid drugs mainly include thioimidazole (carbimazole, methimazole=thiamazole) and propylthiouracil. After absorption, carbimazole is rapidly metabolized to methimazole and thus switching between these two drugs should not be considered in case of side effects. Furthermore, in case of side effects, sometimes even cross reactions between thioimidazoles and propylthiouracil occur. Common and typical adverse reactions of antithyroid drugs include dose dependent hypothyroidism and thus thyroid function should be repeatedly checked while the patient is on antithyroid drugs. Furthermore, pruritus and rash may develop. In this case, one might try to switch from thioimidazoles to propylthiouracil or vice versa. Antithyroid drugs may cause mild dose dependent neutropenia or severe allergy-mediated agranulocytosis, which typically occurs during the first three months of treatment, has an incidence of 3 per 10,000 patients and cross reactivity between thioimidazoles to propylthiouracil may occur. Rarely, antithyroid drugs can cause aplastic anemia. Mainly propylthiouracil, but sometimes also methimazole may lead to an asymptomatic transient increase in liver enzymes or to severe, even lethal liver injury of cholestatic or hepatocellular pattern. Since propylthiouracil associated liver injury was observed increasingly among children and adolescent, it has been suggested to prefer thioimidazoles for these patients. Because of these potential serious adverse effects, physicians should advise patients to immediately seek medical help if they get a fever or sore throat or malaise, abdominal complaints or jaundice, respectively. Furthermore, arthralgias may develop in 1-5% of patients under both antithyroid drugs. Since arthralgias may be the first symptom of more serious immunologic side effects, it is recommended to stop the antithyroid drug in this case. Drug induced polyarthritis mainly develops during the first month of therapy, whereas ANCA-positive vasculitis is generally observed only after long term exposure to propylthiouracil or very rarely with the thioimidazoles. The teratogenic risk of the thioimidazoles is somewhat higher (Aplasia cutis congenita), that is why one generally recommends preferring propylthiouracil during pregnancy. During breast feeding both, thioimidazoles or propylthiouracil, may be administered. Nowadays, perchlorate is only used short term in case of latent hyperthyroidism before administering iodine-containing contrast agents. Therefore, the known side effects, which usually are only observed after long term treatment, are not an issue any more.

Potential drug-drug interactions and adverse drug reactions in patients with liver cirrhosis

Patients with liver cirrhosis may be at risk for potential drug-drug interactions (pDDIs) and/or adverse drug reactions (ADRs) due to the severity of their disease and comorbidities associated with polypharmacy.

NKp46+ cells express granulysin in multiple cutaneous adverse drug reactions

The spectrum of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (cADRs) ranges from benign presentations to severe life-threatening forms such as toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). In TEN, granulysin has been shown to be the key cytotoxic molecule. Still, little is known about the expression of granulysin in other cADRs. As an important source of granulysin, natural killer (NK) cells are of major interest in cADRs. Recently, NKp46 has been identified as the most selective NK-cell marker. However, the role of NKp46(+) cells in cADRs and their contribution to granulysin expression remain to be elucidated.

Dose adjustment in patients with liver cirrhosis: impact on adverse drug reactions and hospitalizations

To assess drug-related problems in patients with liver cirrhosis by investigating the prevalence of inadequately dosed drugs and their association with adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and hospitalizations.

Predicting and diagnosing abacavir and nevirapine drug hypersensitivity: from bedside to bench and back again

There is a growing discussion surrounding the issue of personalized approaches to drug prescription based on an individual's genetic makeup. This field of investigation has focused primarily on identifying genetic factors that influence drug metabolism and cellular disposition, thereby contributing to dose-dependent toxicities and/or variable drug efficacy. However, pharmacogenetic approaches have also proved valuable in predicting drug hypersensitivity reactions in selected patient populations, including HIV-infected patients receiving long-term antiretroviral therapy. In this instance, susceptibility has been strongly linked to genetic loci involved in antigen recognition and presentation to the immune system--most notably within the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) region--consistent with the notion that hypersensitivity reactions represent drug-specific immune responses that are largely dose independent. Here the authors describe their experiences with the development of pharmacogenetic approaches to hypersensitivity reactions associated with abacavir and nevirapine, two commonly prescribed antiretroviral drugs. It is demonstrated that prospective screening tests to identify and exclude individuals with a certain genetic makeup may be largely successful in decreasing or eliminating incidence of these adverse drug reactions in certain populations. This review also explores the broader implications of these findings.

Approach to the patient with drug allergy

Drug allergies are adverse drug reactions mediated by the specific immune system. Despite characteristic signs (eg, skin rash) that raise awareness for possible drug allergies, they are great imitators of disease and may hide behind unexpected symptoms. No single standardized diagnostic test can confirm the immune-mediated mechanism or identify the causative drug; therefore, immune-mediated drug hypersensitivity reactions and their causative drugs must be recognized by the constellation of exposure, timing, and clinical features including the pattern of organ manifestation. Additional allergologic investigations (skin tests, in vitro tests, provocation tests) may provide help in identifying the possible eliciting drug.

Frequent ventricular tachycardias: antiarrhythmic drug treatment or catheter ablation?

Antiarrhythmic drugs are used in at least 50% of patients who received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). The potential indications for antiarrhythmic drug treatments in patients with an ICD are generally the following: reduction of the number of ventricular tachycardias (VTs) or episodes of ventricular fibrillation and therefore reduction of the number of ICD therapies, most importantly, the number of disabling ICD shocks. Accordingly, the quality of life should be improved and the battery life of the ICD extended. Moreover, antiarrhythmic drugs have the potential to increase the tachycardia cycle length to allow termination of VTs by antitachycardia pacing and reduction of the number of syncopes. In addition, supraventricular arrhythmias can be prevented or their rate controlled. Recently published or reported trials have shown the efficacy of amiodarone, sotalol and azimilide to significantly reduce the number of appropriate and inappropriate ICD shocks in patients with structural heart disease. However, the use of antiarrhythmic drugs may also have adverse effects: an increase in the defibrillation threshold, an excessive increase in the VT cycle length leading to detection failure. In this situation and when antiarrhythmic drugs are ineffective or have to be stopped because of serious side effects, catheter ablation of both monomorphic stable and pleomorphic and/or unstable VTs using modern electroanatomic mapping systems should be considered. The choice of antiarrhythmic drug treatment and the need for catheter ablation in ICD patients with frequent VTs should be individually tailored to specific clinical and electrophysiological features including the frequency, the rate, and the clinical presentation of the ventricular arrhythmia. Although VT mapping and ablation is becoming increasingly practical and efficacious, ablation of VT is mostly done as an adjunctive therapy in patients with structural heart disease and ICD experiencing multiple shocks, because the recurrence and especially the occurrence of "new" VTs after primarily successful ablation with time and disease progression have precluded a widespread use of catheter ablation as primary treatment.

Stent Thrombosis in Drug-Eluting or Bare-Metal Stents in Patients Receiving Dual Antiplatelet Therapy

OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare rates of stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) after coronary stenting with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients who participated in the DAPT (Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) study, an international multicenter randomized trial comparing 30 versus 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy in subjects undergoing coronary stenting with either DES or BMS. BACKGROUND Despite antirestenotic efficacy of coronary DES compared with BMS, the relative risk of stent thrombosis and adverse cardiovascular events is unclear. Many clinicians perceive BMS to be associated with fewer adverse ischemic events and to require shorter-duration dual antiplatelet therapy than DES. METHODS Prospective propensity-matched analysis of subjects enrolled into a randomized trial of dual antiplatelet therapy duration was performed. DES- and BMS-treated subjects were propensity-score matched in a many-to-one fashion. The study design was observational for all subjects 0 to 12 months following stenting. A subset of eligible subjects without major ischemic or bleeding events were randomized at 12 months to continued thienopyridine versus placebo; all subjects were followed through 33 months. RESULTS Among 10,026 propensity-matched subjects, DES-treated subjects (n = 8,308) had a lower rate of stent thrombosis through 33 months compared with BMS-treated subjects (n = 1,718, 1.7% vs. 2.6%; weighted risk difference -1.1%, p = 0.01) and a noninferior rate of MACCE (11.4% vs. 13.2%, respectively, weighted risk difference -1.8%, p = 0.053, noninferiority p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS DES-treated subjects have long-term rates of stent thrombosis that are lower than BMS-treated subjects. (The Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Study [DAPT study]; NCT00977938).

The complex clinical picture of side effects to biologicals

Biologicals are proteins used as drugs. Biologicals target clearly defined molecular structures, being part of established pathogenetic pathways. Therefore, their focused mode of action seems to render them superior to classic small molecular drugs regarding "off-target" adverse drug reactions (ADR). Nevertheless, the increasing use of biologicals for the treatment of different diseases has revealed partially unexpected adverse reactions. The often direct interaction of a biological with the immune system provides a clue to most side effects, which have consequently been subclassified, based on pathogenetic principles, into 5 subtypes named alpha, beta, gamma, delta, and epsilon, reflecting overstimulation (high cytokine values, type alpha), hypersensitivity (type beta), immune deviation (including immunodeficiency, type gamma), cross-reactivity (type delta), and nonimmune mediated side effects (type epsilon). This article presents typical clinical manifestations of these subtypes of ADR to biologicals, proposes general rules for treating them, and provides a scheme for a thorough allergological workup. This approach should help in future handling of these often very efficient drugs.

Approach to the patient with drug allergy

Clinicians commonly encounter patients who report to have drug allergy. In a large part, such allergy corresponds to adverse drug reactions, which are not immune mediated. The incriminated drug need not always be avoided for further therapy. On the other hand, drug allergy may manifest in many unexpected clinical pictures and thus not be recognized. There is no single standardized diagnostic test to confirm the immune-mediated mechanism and to identify the causative drug. Therefore, immune-mediated drug hypersensitivity reactions and their causative drugs have to be considered by the constellation of exposure, timing, and clinical features, including the pattern of organ manifestation. Prior experience with the drug is also an important feature. An allergologic workup with additional investigation may provide some help. Patients should be informed carefully about their drug allergy, whereby symptoms, drug that elicits reaction, modes of diagnosis of drug allergy, and possibly alternatives should be indicated in their allergy passport.

Reduction in hepatic drug metabolizing CYP3A4 activities caused by P450 oxidoreductase mutations identified in patients with disordered steroid metabolism

Cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4), the major P450 present in human liver metabolizes approximately half the drugs in clinical use and requires electrons supplied from NADPH through NADPH-P450 reductase (POR, CPR). Mutations in human POR cause a rare form of congenital adrenal hyperplasia from diminished activities of steroid metabolizing P450s. In this study we examined the effect of mutations in POR on CYP3A4 activity. We used purified preparations of wild type and mutant human POR and in vitro reconstitution with purified CYP3A4 to perform kinetic studies. We are reporting that mutations in POR identified in patients with disordered steroidogenesis/Antley-Bixler syndrome (ABS) may reduce CYP3A4 activity, potentially affecting drug metabolism in individuals carrying mutant POR alleles. POR mutants Y181D, A457H, Y459H, V492E and R616X had more than 99% loss of CYP3A4 activity, while POR mutations A287P, C569Y and V608F lost 60-85% activity. Loss of CYP3A4 activity may result in increased risk of drug toxicities and adverse drug reactions in patients with POR mutations.

Anti-infective therapy of peri-implantitis with adjunctive local drug delivery or photodynamic therapy: six-month outcomes of a prospective randomized clinical trial

To compare the adjunctive clinical effects in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with either local drug delivery (LDD) or photodynamic therapy (PDT).

Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for large coronary vessel stenting? The BASKET-PROVE (PROspective Validation Examination) trial: study protocol and design

BACKGROUND: Based on a subgroup analysis of 18-month BAsel Stent Kosten Effektivitäts Trial (BASKET) outcome data, we hypothesized that very late (> 12 months) stent thrombosis occurs predominantly after drug-eluting stent implantation in large native coronary vessel stenting. METHODS: To prove or refute this hypothesis, we set up an 11-center 4-country prospective trial of 2260 consecutive patients treated with > or = 3.0-mm stents only, randomized to receive Cypher (Johnson ; Johnson, Miami Lakes, FL), Vision (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Laboratories, IL), or Xience stents (Abbott Vascular). Only patients with left main or bypass graft disease, in-stent restenosis or stent thrombosis, in need of nonheart surgery, at increased bleeding risk, without compliance/consent are excluded. All patients are treated with dual antiplatelet therapy for 12 months. The primary end point will be cardiac death/nonfatal myocardial infarction after 24 months with further follow-up up to 5 years. RESULTS: By June 12, 229 patients (10% of the planned total) were included with a baseline risk similar to that of the same subgroup of BASKET (n = 588). CONCLUSIONS: This study will answer several important questions of contemporary stent use in patients with large native vessel stenting. The 2-year death/myocardial infarction-as well as target vessel revascularization-and bleeding rates in these patients with a first- versus second-generation drug-eluting stent should demonstrate the benefit or harm of these stents compared to cobalt-chromium bare-metal stents in this relevant, low-risk group of everyday patients. In addition, a comparison with similar BASKET patients will allow to estimate the impact of 12- versus 6-month dual antiplatelet therapy on these outcomes.