The Experts below are selected from a list of 468 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Jean Revuz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
drug induced Pseudolymphoma and hypersensitivity syndrome two different clinical entities
Archives of Dermatology, 1996Co-Authors: Valerie Callot, M Bagot, Jean Claude Roujeau, J Wechsler, Olivier Chosidow, P Souteyrand, P Morel, Louis Dubertret, Mariefrancoise Avril, Jean RevuzAbstract:Objective: To test the hypothesis that drug-induced Pseudolymphoma and hypersensitivity syndrome are 2 distinct clinical entities. Design: Retrospective study from 1980 to 1993. Setting: Departments of dermatology and medicine of 5 referral universitary hospitals. Patients: Twenty-four patients who met arbitrary criteria selected as being suggestive of lymphoma, with probable drug cause. Patients with other definite cutaneous drug-induced eruptions were excluded. Intervention: None. Main Outcome Measures: Suspect drugs; clinical, biological, and pathological findings; and evolution of each case and of 110 published case reports. Results: Two groups were separated according to their mode of onset and clinical aspect. Three patients (and 15 cases in the literature) had subacute papulonodular or infiltrated plaques, without visceral involvment. Skin biopsy specimens showed a dense lymphocytic infiltrate mimicking lymphoma. Healing was constant when the drug was stopped. The 21 remaining patients (and 95 published cases) had an acute widespread eruption, with fever, enlarged lymph nodes, and multivisceral involvement. Lymphocytosis, atypical lymphocytes, eosinophilia, hepatitis, and high levels of lactate dehydrogenase were frequent. Skin biopsy findings were usually not specific (lymphocytic infiltrate and keratinocyte necrosis) but sometimes mimicked lymphoma. Severe forms and relapses occurred, even after the drug was stopped. The inducing drugs were the same in the 2 groups. Conclusions: These 2 groups correspond to drug-induced Pseudolymphoma and hypersensitivity syndrome. We think that they are 2 distinct entities with different clinical and biological features and outcome, even if the pathological findings are sometimes similar. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these facts, to evaluate the therapy, and to follow up patients. Arch Dermatol. 1996;132:1315-1321
Valerie Callot - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
drug induced Pseudolymphoma and hypersensitivity syndrome two different clinical entities
Archives of Dermatology, 1996Co-Authors: Valerie Callot, M Bagot, Jean Claude Roujeau, J Wechsler, Olivier Chosidow, P Souteyrand, P Morel, Louis Dubertret, Mariefrancoise Avril, Jean RevuzAbstract:Objective: To test the hypothesis that drug-induced Pseudolymphoma and hypersensitivity syndrome are 2 distinct clinical entities. Design: Retrospective study from 1980 to 1993. Setting: Departments of dermatology and medicine of 5 referral universitary hospitals. Patients: Twenty-four patients who met arbitrary criteria selected as being suggestive of lymphoma, with probable drug cause. Patients with other definite cutaneous drug-induced eruptions were excluded. Intervention: None. Main Outcome Measures: Suspect drugs; clinical, biological, and pathological findings; and evolution of each case and of 110 published case reports. Results: Two groups were separated according to their mode of onset and clinical aspect. Three patients (and 15 cases in the literature) had subacute papulonodular or infiltrated plaques, without visceral involvment. Skin biopsy specimens showed a dense lymphocytic infiltrate mimicking lymphoma. Healing was constant when the drug was stopped. The 21 remaining patients (and 95 published cases) had an acute widespread eruption, with fever, enlarged lymph nodes, and multivisceral involvement. Lymphocytosis, atypical lymphocytes, eosinophilia, hepatitis, and high levels of lactate dehydrogenase were frequent. Skin biopsy findings were usually not specific (lymphocytic infiltrate and keratinocyte necrosis) but sometimes mimicked lymphoma. Severe forms and relapses occurred, even after the drug was stopped. The inducing drugs were the same in the 2 groups. Conclusions: These 2 groups correspond to drug-induced Pseudolymphoma and hypersensitivity syndrome. We think that they are 2 distinct entities with different clinical and biological features and outcome, even if the pathological findings are sometimes similar. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these facts, to evaluate the therapy, and to follow up patients. Arch Dermatol. 1996;132:1315-1321
Jean Claude Roujeau - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
drug induced Pseudolymphoma and drug hypersensitivity syndrome drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms dress
Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery, 1996Co-Authors: Helene Bocquet, M Bagot, Jean Claude RoujeauAbstract:Since the first description by Saltzstein in 1959, the denomination of drug-induced Pseudolymphoma was used to describe two cutaneous adverse drug reactions with a histological picture mimicking malignant lymphoma. On the basis of clinical presentation, this term includes two different patterns: (1) hypersensitivity syndrome which begins acutely in the first 2 months after the initiation of the drug and associates fever, a severe skin disease with characteristic infiltrated papules and facial edema or an exfoliative dermatitis, lymphadenopathy, hematologic abnormalities (hypereosinophilia, atypical lymphocytes) and organ involvement such as hepatitis, carditis, interstitial nephritis, or interstitial pneumonitis. The cutaneous histological pattern shows a lymphocytic infiltrate, sometimes mimicking a cutaneous lymphoma, and the mortality rate is about 10%. When organ involvement exists, corticosteroids are often prescribed with dramatic improvement. Relapses may occur. (2) drug-induced Pseudolymphoma which has a more insidious beginning with nodules and infiltrated plaques appearing several weeks after the beginning of the drug without constitutional symptoms. A Pseudolymphoma pattern is seen on cutaneous histological slides. Complete improvement is usual after drug withdrawal, but a delayed lymphoma is possible. To decrease the ambiguity of the denomination of hypersensitivity syndrome, we propose the term of DRESS (Drug Rash with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms).
-
drug induced Pseudolymphoma and hypersensitivity syndrome two different clinical entities
Archives of Dermatology, 1996Co-Authors: Valerie Callot, M Bagot, Jean Claude Roujeau, J Wechsler, Olivier Chosidow, P Souteyrand, P Morel, Louis Dubertret, Mariefrancoise Avril, Jean RevuzAbstract:Objective: To test the hypothesis that drug-induced Pseudolymphoma and hypersensitivity syndrome are 2 distinct clinical entities. Design: Retrospective study from 1980 to 1993. Setting: Departments of dermatology and medicine of 5 referral universitary hospitals. Patients: Twenty-four patients who met arbitrary criteria selected as being suggestive of lymphoma, with probable drug cause. Patients with other definite cutaneous drug-induced eruptions were excluded. Intervention: None. Main Outcome Measures: Suspect drugs; clinical, biological, and pathological findings; and evolution of each case and of 110 published case reports. Results: Two groups were separated according to their mode of onset and clinical aspect. Three patients (and 15 cases in the literature) had subacute papulonodular or infiltrated plaques, without visceral involvment. Skin biopsy specimens showed a dense lymphocytic infiltrate mimicking lymphoma. Healing was constant when the drug was stopped. The 21 remaining patients (and 95 published cases) had an acute widespread eruption, with fever, enlarged lymph nodes, and multivisceral involvement. Lymphocytosis, atypical lymphocytes, eosinophilia, hepatitis, and high levels of lactate dehydrogenase were frequent. Skin biopsy findings were usually not specific (lymphocytic infiltrate and keratinocyte necrosis) but sometimes mimicked lymphoma. Severe forms and relapses occurred, even after the drug was stopped. The inducing drugs were the same in the 2 groups. Conclusions: These 2 groups correspond to drug-induced Pseudolymphoma and hypersensitivity syndrome. We think that they are 2 distinct entities with different clinical and biological features and outcome, even if the pathological findings are sometimes similar. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these facts, to evaluate the therapy, and to follow up patients. Arch Dermatol. 1996;132:1315-1321
Hachiro Tagami - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
acral angiokeratoma like Pseudolymphoma one adolescent and two adults
Journal of The American Academy of Dermatology, 2001Co-Authors: Mikiko Okada, Kazuhiro Kudoh, Muneo Tanita, Setsuya Aiba, Michitaka Funayama, Hachiro TagamiAbstract:Abstract In 1988, Ramsay et al proposed an entity of acral Pseudolymphomatous angiokeratoma of children (with an abbreviation of APACHE) for the unilateral multiple angiomatous papules affecting the acral region of the extremities of children. We report here similar lesions that developed in the acral portions of 1 female adolescent and 2 women. Histopathologically, they showed Pseudolymphomatous features rather than those of angiokeratoma. Thus, the term should be acral angiokeratoma-like Pseudolymphoma would be more appropriate than APACHE originally proposed. (J Am Acad Dermatol 2001;45:S209-11.)
M Bagot - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
drug induced Pseudolymphoma and drug hypersensitivity syndrome drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms dress
Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery, 1996Co-Authors: Helene Bocquet, M Bagot, Jean Claude RoujeauAbstract:Since the first description by Saltzstein in 1959, the denomination of drug-induced Pseudolymphoma was used to describe two cutaneous adverse drug reactions with a histological picture mimicking malignant lymphoma. On the basis of clinical presentation, this term includes two different patterns: (1) hypersensitivity syndrome which begins acutely in the first 2 months after the initiation of the drug and associates fever, a severe skin disease with characteristic infiltrated papules and facial edema or an exfoliative dermatitis, lymphadenopathy, hematologic abnormalities (hypereosinophilia, atypical lymphocytes) and organ involvement such as hepatitis, carditis, interstitial nephritis, or interstitial pneumonitis. The cutaneous histological pattern shows a lymphocytic infiltrate, sometimes mimicking a cutaneous lymphoma, and the mortality rate is about 10%. When organ involvement exists, corticosteroids are often prescribed with dramatic improvement. Relapses may occur. (2) drug-induced Pseudolymphoma which has a more insidious beginning with nodules and infiltrated plaques appearing several weeks after the beginning of the drug without constitutional symptoms. A Pseudolymphoma pattern is seen on cutaneous histological slides. Complete improvement is usual after drug withdrawal, but a delayed lymphoma is possible. To decrease the ambiguity of the denomination of hypersensitivity syndrome, we propose the term of DRESS (Drug Rash with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms).
-
drug induced Pseudolymphoma and hypersensitivity syndrome two different clinical entities
Archives of Dermatology, 1996Co-Authors: Valerie Callot, M Bagot, Jean Claude Roujeau, J Wechsler, Olivier Chosidow, P Souteyrand, P Morel, Louis Dubertret, Mariefrancoise Avril, Jean RevuzAbstract:Objective: To test the hypothesis that drug-induced Pseudolymphoma and hypersensitivity syndrome are 2 distinct clinical entities. Design: Retrospective study from 1980 to 1993. Setting: Departments of dermatology and medicine of 5 referral universitary hospitals. Patients: Twenty-four patients who met arbitrary criteria selected as being suggestive of lymphoma, with probable drug cause. Patients with other definite cutaneous drug-induced eruptions were excluded. Intervention: None. Main Outcome Measures: Suspect drugs; clinical, biological, and pathological findings; and evolution of each case and of 110 published case reports. Results: Two groups were separated according to their mode of onset and clinical aspect. Three patients (and 15 cases in the literature) had subacute papulonodular or infiltrated plaques, without visceral involvment. Skin biopsy specimens showed a dense lymphocytic infiltrate mimicking lymphoma. Healing was constant when the drug was stopped. The 21 remaining patients (and 95 published cases) had an acute widespread eruption, with fever, enlarged lymph nodes, and multivisceral involvement. Lymphocytosis, atypical lymphocytes, eosinophilia, hepatitis, and high levels of lactate dehydrogenase were frequent. Skin biopsy findings were usually not specific (lymphocytic infiltrate and keratinocyte necrosis) but sometimes mimicked lymphoma. Severe forms and relapses occurred, even after the drug was stopped. The inducing drugs were the same in the 2 groups. Conclusions: These 2 groups correspond to drug-induced Pseudolymphoma and hypersensitivity syndrome. We think that they are 2 distinct entities with different clinical and biological features and outcome, even if the pathological findings are sometimes similar. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these facts, to evaluate the therapy, and to follow up patients. Arch Dermatol. 1996;132:1315-1321
