A Review and Assessment of Drug-Induced Thrombocytosis

2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (5) ◽  
pp. 523-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quyen T. Vo ◽  
Dennis F. Thompson
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Search Term ◽  
Drug Induced ◽  
Reactive Thrombocytosis ◽  
All Trans Retinoic Acid ◽  
Mesh Terms

Objectives: The purpose of this article is to review the current literature on drug-induced thrombocytosis with the goal of critically assessing causality and providing a comprehensive review of the topic. Thrombopoietic growth factors, such as thrombopoietin-receptor agonists (romiplostim and eltrombopag) and erythropoietin are not included in our review. Data Sources: The literature search included published articles limited to the English language and humans in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. MEDLINE/PubMed (1966 to September 2018) was searched using the MeSH terms thrombocytosis/chemically-induced and thrombocytosis/etiology. EMBASE (1980 to September 2018) was searched using the EMTAGS thrombocytosis/side effect. Web of Science (1970 to September 2018) was searched using the search term thrombocytosis. References of all relevant articles were reviewed for additional citations and information. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Review articles, clinical trials, background data, case series, and case reports of drug-induced thrombocytosis were collected, and case reports were assessed for causality using a modified Naranjo nomogram. Data Synthesis: Drug-induced thrombocytosis, a form of reactive thrombocytosis cannot be easily differentiated from more common etiologies of reactive thrombocytosis. In all, 43 case reports of drug-induced thrombocytosis from a wide variety of drugs and drug classes were reviewed using a modified Naranjo probability scale that included criteria specific for thrombocytosis. Conclusions: Drug-induced thrombocytosis is a relatively rare adverse drug reaction. The strongest evidence of causality supports low-molecular-weight heparins and neonatal drug withdrawal. Weaker evidence exists for all-trans retinoic acid, antibiotics, clozapine, epinephrine, gemcitabine, and vinca alkaloids.

Drug-Induced Restless Legs Syndrome

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (7) ◽  
pp. 662-672 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edna Patatanian ◽  
Melanie K. Claborn
Keyword(s):  
Restless Legs Syndrome ◽  
English Language ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Predisposing Factors ◽  
Drug Induced ◽  
Restless Legs ◽  
Drug Classes ◽  
Study Selection

Objective: To review the literature on drug-induced restless legs syndrome (DI-RLS). Data Sources: The review included a search for English-language literature from 1966 to December 2017 in the MEDLINE, PubMed, and Ovid databases using the following search terms: restless legs syndrome (RLS), periodic limb movement, adverse effects, and drug-induced. In addition, background articles on the pathophysiology, etiology, and epidemiology of RLS were retrieved. Bibliographies of relevant articles were reviewed for additional citations. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All case reports, case series, and review articles of DI-RLS were identified and analyzed. There were only a small number of controlled clinical trials, and most data were from case reports and case series. Results: Several drugs and drug classes have been implicated in DI-RLS, with antidepressants, antipsychotics, and antiepileptics having the most evidence. In addition, RLS may be linked with a number of disorders or underlying predisposing factors as well. Conclusions: The prevalence of RLS is variable and ranges from 3% to 19% in the general population. There are many predisposing factors to RLS, but an emerging body of evidence suggests that there is an association between numerous drugs and RLS.

scholarly journals Clinical Features and Outcome of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Neonates: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shashi Kant Dhir ◽  
Jogender Kumar ◽  
Jitendra Meena ◽  
Praveen Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Caesarean Section ◽  
Clinical Features ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Mode Of Delivery ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Congenital Infection ◽  
Modes Of Transmission ◽  
Mesh Terms

Abstract Objective The objective of this study is to systematically synthesize the currently available literature on various modes of transmission (congenital, intrapartum, and postpartum), clinical features and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in neonates. Methods We conducted a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science until 9 June 2020. A combination of keywords and MeSH terms, such as COVID-19, coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, 2019-nCoV, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, neonates, newborn, infant, pregnancy, obstetrics, vertical transmission, maternal–foetal transmission and intrauterine transmission, were used in the search strategy. We included studies reporting neonatal outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 proven pregnancies or neonatal cases diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results Eighty-six publications (45 case series and 41 case reports) were included in this review. Forty-five case series reported 1992 pregnant women, of which 1125 (56.5%) gave birth to 1141 neonates. A total of 281 (25%) neonates were preterm, and caesarean section (66%) was the preferred mode of delivery. Forty-one case reports describe 43 mother-baby dyads of which 16 were preterm, 9 were low birth weight and 27 were born by caesarean section. Overall, 58 neonates were reported with SARS-CoV-2 infection (4 had a congenital infection), of which 29 (50%) were symptomatic (23 required ICU) with respiratory symptoms being the predominant manifestation (70%). No mortality was reported in SARS-CoV-2-positive neonates. Conclusion The limited low-quality evidence suggests that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infections in neonates is extremely low. Unlike children, most COVID-positive neonates were symptomatic and required intensive care. Postpartum acquisition was the commonest mode of infection in neonates, although a few cases of congenital infection have also been reported.

Clinical Toxicology of Yew Poisoning

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. 591-599 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander W. Labossiere ◽  
Dennis F. Thompson
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Extracorporeal Life Support ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Plant Materials ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Life Threatening

Objectives: Yew plant materials contain highly toxic taxine alkaloids. Serious ingestions can result in life-threatening toxicity. The purpose of this article is to summarize the literature on the treatment of acute yew poisoning. Data Sources: PubMed (January 1946 to November 2017) was searched using the search terms “taxus/po”. EMBASE (1980 to November 2017) was searched using the search terms “taxus/to” and “yew.mp.” Web of Science (1945 to November 2017) was searched using the text words taxus, taxine, and yew. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Available English language articles involving case reports, epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes were included. Data Synthesis: Although not uncommon, unintentional yew poisoning rarely results in significant morbidity or mortality. A total of 26 case reports of yew poisoning were evaluated along with 4 case series articles (totaling 22 additional cases). Only 4 of the 48 total cases (8%) were accidental poisonings, the rest being deliberate ingestions. In 20 patients (42%), it resulted in fatalities. Severe, acute yew poisoning results in symptomatology largely resistant to pharmacotherapy intervention. Conclusions: Most nonintentional ingestions of yew plant constituents are asymptomatic and require little intervention. Severe poisoning can result in life-threatening cardiac toxicity and require aggressive supportive care. Therapeutic interventions, such as sodium bicarbonate, digoxin immune fab, and hemodialysis that have been utilized in case studies and case series in the literature have little proven benefit. Extracorporeal life support should be considered in severe yew poisoning.

Psychotropic Drug-Related Rhabdomyolysis

1992 ◽  
Vol 26 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 948-954 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna M. Jermain ◽  
M. Lynn Crismon
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effect ◽  
Psychotropic Drug ◽  
English Language ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Drug Induced ◽  
Individual Factor ◽  
Intramuscular Injections ◽  
Muscle Necrosis

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to discuss the pathophysiology and potential etiologies of rhabdomyolysis in psychiatric patients, with an emphasis on psychotropic drug-induced rhabdomyolysis. DATA SOURCES: References were obtained through an on-line search of MEDLINE, using English-language and human literature only. STUDY SELECTION: Because the topic is a potential drug-induced adverse effect, no controlled studies are available. Most of the literature are case reports and series of case reports. DATA EXTRACTION: The quality of case reports was assessed using the Food and Drug Administration guidelines for assessing the causality of a potential adverse drug reaction. DATA SYNTHESIS: The results of this review are based on qualitative data and indicate that rhabdomyolysis in psychiatric patients can be from multiple etiologies, including agitation, dehydration, and intramuscular injections, as well as an adverse effect of psychotropic medications. Although the deficiencies of this type of data are recognized, it is the only type of data often available to assess the etiology and causality of an uncommon adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Rhabdomyolysis in psychiatric patients can be caused by many factors, both drug- and non—drug-related. Rhabdomyolysis is more likely to occur when patients are faced with a combination of risk factors. When combinations of factors are present (e.g., aggression and restraints, intramuscular injections, and extrapyramidal effects), or when muscle trauma from an individual factor is sufficiently traumatic, muscle necrosis may occur to the point that rhabdomyolysis ensues.

Valproic Acid in the Management of Delirium

2021 ◽  
pp. 104990912110383
Author(s):  
Carlos Fernandez Cuartas ◽  
Mellar Davis
Keyword(s):  
Valproic Acid ◽  
English Language ◽  
Retrospective Studies ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Mesh Terms ◽  
Starting Dose ◽  
The Mean

Context: Antipsychotics and benzodiazepines do not improve delirium. Valproic acid (VPA) has been used recently to treat agitation in delirium. Objectives: To review the evidence for VPA in the management of Delirium. Methods: Systematic review. English language, age 19 and above, from 1946 to January 12, 2021. Mesh Terms: “Valproic acid”, “valproate”, “sodium valproate”, “delirium”, “acute mania with delirium” in PubMed and Ovid. Exclusion: Studies of VPA used for diagnoses other than delirium. Results: 21 abstracts were identified and 10 studies were included in the review (252 patients): One prospective open label study (n: 7), 2 case series (n: 22), 4 retrospective studies (n: 219) and 3 case reports (n: 4). No randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluates the effect of VPA in delirium. 237/250 (94.8%) patients were in the ICU. Mean age was 59.7 (27-87). 153/204 (74%) were male. The mean starting dose was 733 mg/day in 148 patients and the mean dose at follow up was 1061 mg/day in 205 patients. CAM ICU was used to diagnose delirium in 6 reviews. Delirium improved in case series in 19/22 patients. Delirium improved in retrospective studies at day 3 compared to day 1. VPA levels were not consistently reported. Hyperammonemia (12-19%) and thrombocytopenia (9-13%) were the most common side effects. No deaths were attributed to VPA. Conclusion: VPA is being used more frequently for delirium. The evidence is limited to retrospective studies and case series. There is a need for RCT to evaluate the effect of VPA in delirium compared to other alternatives and placebo.

Antidepressant-lnduced Liver Injury

2007 ◽  
Vol 41 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 1201-1211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin P DeSanty ◽  
Celene M Amabile
Keyword(s):  
Liver Injury ◽  
Reuptake Inhibitor ◽  
English Language ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Drug Discontinuation ◽  
Drug Induced ◽  
Concurrent Use ◽  
Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitor

Objective: To review principles of drug-induced liver injury (DILI), summarize characteristics of antidepressant-mediated liver Injury, and provide recommendations for monitoring and management. Data Sources: A search relating to antidepressant-induced liver injury was performed using MEDLINE (1966–March 2007). Search terms included antidepressant, cholestasis, hepatotoxicity, jaundice, liver injury, toxic hepatitis, and transaminases. Reference citations not Identified in the initial database search were also utilized. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All English-language case reports, letters, and review articles identified from the data sources were used. Case reports and letters relating to hepatotoxicity from antidepressant overdose were excluded. Data Synthesis: Antidepressant-induced liver injury described in published cases were of the idiopathic type and, by definition, cannot be predicted based on dose or specific risk factors. Paroxetine had the largest number of cases within the selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor class. Nefazodone, a serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, appeared to have the most serious cases and is the only antidepressant agent that carries a Food and Drug Administration Black Box Warning regarding hepatotoxiciiy. The tricyclic antidepressants and monoamine oxidase Inhibitors are capable of producing hepatotoxicity, but fewer cases with these agents have been reported in the past 15 years, possibly due to a decline in their use. Causality has not been well established in all reports due to the concurrent use of other drugs and/or underlying liver disease. Conclusions: Most antidepressant agents have the potential to produce idiopathic liver injury. There is no way to prevent idiopathic DILI, but the severity of the reaction may be minimized with prompt recognition and early withdrawal of the agent. The clinician must be careful to provide ongoing therapy of the underlying depressive disorder and be aware of possible drug discontinuation syndromes should potential hepatotoxicity be suspected.

scholarly journals 531 COVID-19 and Patients with Congenital Heart Disease: Are the Risk Higher? A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Haiduc ◽  
M Ogunjimi ◽  
R Shammus ◽  
S Mahmood ◽  
A Harky
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
Mesh Terms ◽  
Extensive Literature Search ◽  
Poor Outcomes

Abstract Introduction We aimed to determine if patients with CHD are at a higher risk of poor outcomes if they have COVID-19, compared to those without CHD. Method A systematic review was executed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. To identify articles related to COVID-19 and CHD, an extensive literature search was performed on EMBASE, Medline, Scopus and Global Health databases using keywords and MeSH terms. Results 12 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis in this systematic review. Two themes were identified for data extraction: [1] evidence supporting higher risks in CHD patients and [2] evidence against higher risks in CHD patients. After combining the data, there were 99 patients with CHDs out of which 12 required admission to ICU. Conclusions This systematic review suggests that CHD may increase the risk of poor outcomes for those with COVID-19, but also highlights the necessity for more research with larger sample sizes in order to make a more justified conclusion, as the majority of papers that were analysed were case series and case reports. Future research should aim to quantify the risks if possible while accounting for various confounding factors such as age and treatment history.

Sulfonamide Cross-Reactivity: Fact or Fiction?

2005 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 290-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly K Johnson ◽  
David L Green ◽  
Jason P Rife ◽  
Lynn Limon
Keyword(s):  
Case Reports ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Drug Hypersensitivity ◽  
Package Insert ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Cross Reactivity ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Mesh Terms ◽  
Pubmed Search ◽  
The Individual

OBJECTIVE: To provide a critical and comprehensive review of the literature, specifically case reports and observational studies used to support the concept of cross-reactivity between sulfonylarylamines and non-sulfonylarylamines. DATA SOURCES: A list of medications was formulated from several different review articles. A MEDLINE/PubMed search was conducted (1966–March 2004) using the individual medications and the MeSH terms of drug hypersensitivity/etiology, sulfonamides/adverse effects, and/or cross-reaction. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: A critical review of the methodology and conclusions for each article found in the search was conducted. The manufacturer's package insert (MPI) for each drug was examined for a statement concerning possible cross-reactivity in patients with a sulfonamide allergy. If indicated, the manufacturers were contacted to obtain any clinical data supporting the statement. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 33 medications were identified. Seventeen (51.5%) of the MPIs contained statements of varying degrees concerning use in patients with a “sulfonamide” allergy; 21 case series, case reports, and other articles were found. CONCLUSIONS: After a thorough critique of the literature, it appears that the dogma of sulfonylarylamine cross-reactivity with non-sulfonylarylamines is not supported by the data. While many of the case reports on the surface support the concept of cross-reactivity, on closer examination the level of evidence in many of the cases does not conclusively support either a connection or an association between the observed cause and effect.

scholarly journals Erythema Multiforme and COVID-19: What Do We Know?

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (8) ◽  
pp. 828
Author(s):  
Luigi Bennardo ◽  
Steven Paul Nisticò ◽  
Stefano Dastoli ◽  
Eugenio Provenzano ◽  
Maddalena Napolitano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Erythema Multiforme ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Clinical Course ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Drug Induced ◽  
Cutaneous Eruption ◽  
Isi Web Of Science ◽  
Juvenile Type

(1) Background: Erythema multiforme (EM) is an acute cutaneous eruption often associated with infections and more rarely with drugs. This review aimed to evaluate the association between erythema multiforme and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). (2) Methods: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scimago Scopus, and ISI/Web of Science was performed. Original articles, case series, or case reports were evaluated and selected. (3) Results: Fourteen articles were selected, describing a total of 70 patients. EM is a cutaneous eruption rarely occurring in COVID-19 and is, in most cases, associated with a hypersensitivity reaction to the virus. In these cases, EM seems to affect patients younger than 30 years or older than 55 years. Infrequently, some drugs used in the management of COVID-19 may induce EM, especially hydroxychloroquine. The three groups of patients seem to have different clinical characteristics and courses. (4) Conclusions: From these data, it is possible to preliminarily propose that EM or EM-like eruptions linked to COVID-19 might be divided into three types: the virus-related juvenile type (affecting patients <30-year-old), the virus-related older type (affecting patients >55 years), and the drug-induced type. The occurrence of a skin rash does not seem to be related to the severity and clinical course of COVID-19.

scholarly journals Drug Interactions With Oral Inhaled Medications

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 273-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chanelle M. Ajimura ◽  
Nikhil Jagan ◽  
Lee E. Morrow ◽  
Mark A. Malesker
Keyword(s):  
Drug Interactions ◽  
English Language ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Significant Drug Interaction ◽  
Mesh Terms ◽  
Specific Medication ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Package Labeling

Objective: To evaluate the potential for drug interactions with oral inhaled medications (OIMs). OIMs include bronchodilators (β-agonists and antimuscarinics), corticosteroids, combination products (2 or more agents combined within a single inhalation device), antibiotics, prostacyclins, anesthetics, acetylcysteine, mucolytics, insulin, antivirals, nitric oxide, and nicotine replacement. Data Sources: A systemic literature search (1980 to May 2018) was performed using PubMed and EBSCO to locate relevant articles. The MESH terms used included each specific medication available as an OIM as well as “drug interactions.” DAILYMED was used for product-specific drug interactions. Study Selection and Data Extraction: The search was conducted to identify drug interactions with OIMs. The search was limited to those articles studying human applications with OIMs and publications using the English language. Case reports, clinical trials, review articles, treatment guidelines, and package labeling were selected for inclusion. Data Synthesis: Primary literature and package labeling indicate that OIMs are subject to pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics interactions. The most frequently identified clinically significant drug interaction is an inhaled corticosteroid when combined with a potent CYP 450 inhibitor such as a protease inhibitor or antifungal. Conclusions: The available literature indicates that OIMs are associated with clinically significant drug interactions and subsequent adverse reactions. Clinicians in all practice settings should be mindful of this potential to minimize adverse effects and optimize therapy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document