Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_2867_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Diagnostic Approach Toward Fixed Drug Eruptions
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Hypereosinophilic Syndrome Treatment Options
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Discussion
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Alternative Diagnosis/Potential Misdiagnosis
- •Note
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Alternative Diagnosis/Potential Misdiagnosis
- •Note
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Alternative Diagnosis Considered/Potential Misdiagnosis
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Alternative Diagnoses
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Alternative Diagnoses
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Plan of Action, the Points Clinician Should Consider, Pitfalls to Avoid, and Pearls of Knowledge to Consider
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnoses
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Plan of Action, the Points Clinician Should Consider, Pitfalls to Avoid, and Pearls of Knowledge to Consider
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Case 1
- •Case 2
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Plan of Action, the Points Clinician Should Consider, Pitfalls to Avoid, and Pearls of Knowledge to Consider
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Plan of Action, the Points Clinician Should Consider, Pitfalls to Avoid, and Pearls of Knowledge to Consider
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Plan of Action, the Points Clinician Should Consider, Pitfalls to Avoid, and Pearls of Knowledge to Consider
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •The Plan of Action, Points to Consider, Pitfalls to Avoid, and Pearls of Knowledge
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •The Lawyers Are Watching
- •Misdiagnosis Versus Missed Diagnosis
- •Prostate Cancer Misdiagnosis
- •Breast Cancer Misdiagnosis
- •Exemplar Cases
- •Cardiac Misdiagnosis
- •COVID Misdiagnosis
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Conclusion
- •References

2 Angioedema Bowel Blockade: The Misdiagnosis of Hereditary Angioedema as…
Orphanet J Rare Dis 2020;15(1):221 Published 2020 Aug 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s13023- 020- 01506- 5.
6. Zanichelli A, Longhurst HJ, Maurer M, etal. Misdiagnosis trends in patients with hereditary angioedema from the real-world clinical setting. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol.
2016;117(4):394–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2016.08.014.
7. Longhurst H, Cicardi M.Hereditary angio-oedema. Lancet. 2012;379(9814):474–81. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0140- 6736(11)60935- 5F.
8. Hirose T, Kimbara F, Shinozaki M, etal. Screening for hereditary angioedema (HAE) at 13
emergency centers in Osaka, Japan: a prospective observational study. Medicine (Baltimore).
2017;96(6):e6109. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000006109.
9. Figueroa-Diaz LC, Rodriguez-Ruiz FG, Betancourt-Torres M, Ojeda-Boscana IL, Lara
JA. Non-surgical Management of Colo-Colonic Intussusception in patients with hereditary angioedema. Am J Case Rep. 2018;19:1208–11. Published 2018 Oct 10. https://doi.
org/10.12659/AJCR.91022.
10. Eck SL, Morse JH, Janssen DA, Emerson SG, Markovitz DM.Angioedema presenting as
chronic gastrointestinal symptoms. Am J Gastroenterol. 1993;88(3):436–9.
11. Rubinstein E, Stolz LE, Sheffer AL, Stevens C, Bousvaros A. Abdominal attacks and treatment in hereditary angioedema with C1-inhibitor deciency. BMC Gastroenterol. 2014;14:71.
Published 2014 Apr 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471- 230X- 14- 71.
12. Campos RA, Valle SOR, Toledo EC.Hereditary angioedema: a disease seldom diagnosed by
pediatricians. J Pediatr. 2021;97(Suppl 1):S10–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2020.10.011.
13. Memon RJ, Tiwari V.Angioedema. [Updated 2022 May 1]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure
Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
books/NBK538489/?report=classic
14. Bork K, Bindewald H, Böckers M, Eckardt V.Aszites und vermeintliches akutes abdomen
bei hereditärem Angioödem durch C1-inhibitor-Mangel [ascites and suspected acute abdomen in hereditary angioedema due to C1 inhibitor deciency]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr.
1997;122(44):1347–50. https://doi.org/10.1055/s- 2008- 1047770.
15. Zanichelli A, Azin GM, Cristina F, Vacchini R, Caballero T. Safety, effectiveness, and
impact on quality of life of self-administration with plasma-derived nanoltered C1 inhibitor
(Berinert®) in patients with hereditary angioedema: the SABHA study. Orphanet J Rare Dis.
2018;13(1):51. Published 2018 Apr 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023- 018- 0797- 3.
16. Kothari ST, Shah AM, Botu D, Spira R, Greenblatt R, Depasquale JIsolated angioedema
of the bowel due to C1 esterase inhibitor deciency: a case report and review of literature.
JMed Case Rep. 2011;5:467. J Med Case Rep. 2011;5:62. Published 2011 Feb 14. https://doi.
org/10.1186/1752-1947-5-62.
17. Iwanami K, Okano T, Ohara O, Morio T.Recurrent acute abdomen as the Main manifestation
of hereditary angioedema. Intern Med. 2019;58(2):213–6. https://doi.org/10.2169/internalme
dicine.1559- 18.
18. Killedar MM, Malani AS.Hereditary angioedema-presenting as recurrent abdominal pain.
Indian J Surg. 2011;73(6):444–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262- 011- 0255- 0.
19. Marenah CB, Quiney JR.C1 esterase inhibitor deciency as a cause of abdominal pain. Br
Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1983;286(6367):786–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.286.6367.786.
20. Warin RP, Higgs ER. Acute and recurrent abdominal pain due to hereditary angio-oedema.
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1982;284(6333):1912. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.284.6333.1912.
21. Soni P, Kumar V, Alliu S, Shetty V. Hereditary angioedema (HAE): a cause for recurrent
abdominal pain. BMJ Case Rep. 2016;2016:bcr2016217196. Published 2016 Nov 14. https://
doi.org/10.1136/bcr- 2016- 217196.
22. Chen X, Yang YX, Liu YL, Gan HT, Wen ZH.Hereditary angioedema: a rare cause of recurrent
abdominal pain. Pak J Med Sci. 2014;30(5):1147–9. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.305.5524.
23. Jáuregui Presa I, Varona Peinador M, Pérez Bea M, et al. Acute abdomen in a patient with
homozygous type I hereditary angioedema: rapid improvement in computed tomography scans
after C1 inhibitor replacement. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2013;23(7):504–6.
17

Chapter 3
Bullous Fixed Drug Eruption
DuetoFluconazole Imitating Herpes
Simplex
FatimaAnwer
Learning Objectives
By the end of this presentation, the clinician will be able to:
1. Discuss what xed drug eruptions are.
2. Enumerate the drugs that are most likely to cause xed drug eruptions and
understand their pathogenesis.
3. Describe how to diagnose and treat xed drug eruptions.
4. Differentiate the mucosal xed drug eruptions from recurrent herpes simplex.
5. Elaborate on the importance of taking a thorough drug history to prevent
misdiagnosis.
Introduction
Fixed drug eruptions (FDEs) are recurring erythematous plaques that occur at the
exact anatomical location due to drug allergy. They happen every time after the drug
is administered [1]. It is supposed to be caused by the activation of epidermal
CD8(+) T cells that produce plenty of interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) [2].
Antibiotics and analgesics are the leading cause of FDE [3]. Oral uconazole is
most frequently associated with FDE around the mouth, which resembles the recurrent herpes simplex lesion and has been misdiagnosed [4]. We discuss a misdiagnosed case of FDE after uconazole.
F. Anwer (*)
PGY-1, Internal Medicine, Harlem Hospital, New York, NY, USA
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023
H. Tohid et al. (eds.), The Misdiagnosis Casebook in Clinical Medicine,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28296-6_3
19

20
F. A nwe r
Clinical Case Presentation
A 25year-old-female reported a history of recurrent vesicles in the perioral area.
They appeared on the third day of every cycle with burning and tingling in the
affected area. There was no fever or systemic symptoms. She was diagnosed with
recurrent herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection by a few dermatologists she has
visited previously. She started taking oral acyclovir followed by oral valacyclovir as
prophylaxis for recurrent HSV.The problem persisted despite taking the medication, and she kept visiting doctors. The patient had redness, burning sensation and
pain in the affected area. They suspected the HSV was resistant to medication.
Physical examination revealed a bunch of vesicles, 2–3mm in size, in the perioral area. Labs including complete blood count (CBC), erythrocyte sedimentation
rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), urine analysis, serum IgM, IgG, and IgA
came back normal. Syphilis and HIV screening came back negative, and polymerase
chain reaction (PCR) for herpes and cultures from vesicles came back negative.
The patient later revealed that she had been taking uconazole monthly for recurrent vaginal candidiasis. This led to the nal diagnosis, which was a xed drug
eruption due to uconazole, as the blisters always appeared a few hours after taking
the drug. Fluconazole was discontinued, and she didn’t report any recurrence on her
3-month follow-up.
Differential Diagnosis
1. Erythema Multiforme – Erythema multiforme presents as tiny, evenly distrib-
uted lesions that mainly involve acral areas. On the other hand, FDE is distributed primarily to the trunk. There is no hyperpigmentation after the lesions
resolve, and FDE recurs at the same spot. Both can involve mucosa [5]. When
compared to FDE, histopathology is incredibly different. There could be liquefactive basal epidermal cell degeneration, necrotic keratinocytes, and lymphocyte exocytosis. Necrosis is prominent in the dusky center of the targetoid
lesion [6].
2. Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS)– Stevens-Johnson lesions begin as a morbil-
liform rash and are less well-dened than FDE lesions. In addition, systemic
ndings are always present in SJS patients, and the disease spreads rapidly [5].
SJS occurs 6–21 days after inciting the drug. It has mucosal involvement in
>90% of the cases. Histology consists of pauci-inammatory inltrate with
many eosinophils and total thickness epidermal necrosis [7].
3. Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis—Toxic epidermal necrolysis is a therapeutic emer-
gency. It is caused by drugs or infections and damages the keratinocytes. It leads
to various hydroelectric disorders and systemic infections. Greater than 30% of
the body area has mucocutaneous detachment. Histology shows necrotic keratinocytes [8].

3 Bullous Fixed Drug Eruption DuetoFluconazole Imitating Herpes Simplex
4. Herpes Simplex Virus—FDE is frequently misdiagnosed as a herpes simplex
virus infection. In the case of FDE, a hyperpigmented patch appears after the
lesion has healed, and drug history is invariably present. Furthermore, if antiviral
treatment fails, a biopsy of the lesion should be performed, and PCR for herpes
simplex should be ordered to look for the virus [9].
21
What WasMisdiagnosed inThis Case andWhy?
FDE was misdiagnosed as the patient forgot to mention the uconazole she used
once a month for vaginal candidiasis. Moreover, the lesions were recurrent and
occurred at the same spots, which resembles Herpes Simplex lesions.
Discussion
Fixed drug eruptions are a cutaneous adverse effect of a drug dened by lesions that
reappear in the same spot after the patient takes the offending medication [10]. FDE
is responsible for 10% of cutaneous drug reactions, and it can occur at any site but
mainly on hands, lips, and genitalia [11].
Pathogenesis andPresentation ofFixed Drug Eruptions
FDE is a delayed-type cellular hypersensitivity response [12]. FDE presents as a
single or a small number of itchy, red macules with distinct margins that later evolve
into edematous plaques. Once the triggering medicine is discontinued, the lesion
disappears, leaving hyperpigmentation. The lesion ares up within 30mins to 8h
after drug intake [13]. The lesions last for around 1–3weeks after discontinuing the
drug [11]. The pathogenesis is caused by intraepidermal CD8+ T cells. These cells
are not cytolytic in general, but once triggered by CD3-T-cell receptor complex,
they start killing natural killer sensitive or NK-resistant tumor cells and keratinocytes. CD8+ T cells cause direct cytolysis by perforins. Additionally, they release
lots of interferon-gamma (IFN-γ). IFN-γ recruits unchecked CD4+, CD8+ T cells
and neutrophils and enhances tissue damage. These intradermal CD8+T cells are
abundant in the FDE lesions [13].
The most characteristic nding of FDE is recurrence at the same site. Although
most lesions have persistent hyperpigmentation in the aficted region, some
uncommon variants leave no residual hyperpigmentation. Several distinctive forms
have been reported, including erythema multiforme-like FDE, toxic epidermal
necrolysis- like FDE, linear FDE, etc. [14]. Mahboob A and Haroon TS studied 450
cases of FDE. 72% of the patients had no symptoms, while 24% reported itching,

22
burning, or combination. Rest 3.8% reported local pain. 84% had lesions on multiple sites of the body. Lips were the most involved site. 31% reported back to the
hospital within 1year due to missed diagnosis on their rst visit and lack of awareness led to multiple episodes. The lesions were hyperpigmented primarily. Some
distinctive forms, including urticaria, dermatitis, periorbital, and generalized hyper
melanosis, were also reported. Clotrimazole was the most common cause of
FDE [15].
F. A nwe r
Diagnostic Approach Toward Fixed Drug Eruptions
The patch test is the most common method to diagnose FDE, and it is less damaging, but it is less realistic. Positive outcomes rely on the causative medication, and
it was more accurate when contrast medium or antiepileptics were the culprits [16].
A biopsy is recommended in undiagnosed cases or those with systemic symptoms
or atypical appearance [17]. Clotrimazole was the most common cause of
FDE.Localized lesions are caused by trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX)
and NSAIDs. Oral mucosa is involved with naproxen and TMP-SMX.Antibiotics
cause generalized bullous variants [15, 17].
Treatment ofFixed Drug Eruptions
Treatment involves removing the harmful medication and providing supportive
care. Oral antihistamines and medium to high dosage of topical corticosteroids
could be administered for pruritus. Oral steroids are of no benet. Cyclosporine has
also shown a favorable response in some patients [13]. We have discussed a case of
FDE after uconazole. The FDE mainly involves mucosa and recurs every time the
drug is readministered, and it was mistaken for recurrent herpes. Mucosal FDE can
masquerade as herpes. Many cases of FDE are mistaken for herpes simplex lesions,
and it is critical to establish a correct diagnosis by knowing the difference between
lesions. Most patients respond to itraconazole, so it can be used to treat the fungal
infection instead [9, 18, 19].
Conclusion
Fixed drug eruptions are the type 4 hypersensitivity reaction to drugs. It develops as
an allergic response to medication and can manifest as various lesions, ranging
from mucosal vesicles that mirror herpes simplex to bullous lesions that imitate different bullous disorders. It’s vital to get the correct diagnosis to avoid recurrent
reactions.

3 Bullous Fixed Drug Eruption DuetoFluconazole Imitating Herpes Simplex
23
References
1. Sánchez-Borges M, González-Aveledo LA.Fixed drug eruptions induced by cross-reactive
imidazoles. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). 2011;39(4):246–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aller.2010.07.003.
2. Shiohara T, Mizukawa Y.Fixed drug eruption: a disease mediated by self-inicted responses
of intraepidermal T cells. Eur J Dermatol. 2007;17(3):201–8. https://doi.org/10.1684/
ejd.2007.0149.
3. Breathnach SM, Burns DA, Cox NH, Grifths CE, editors. Rook’s textbook of dermatology.
Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.
4. Calogiuri G, Garvey LH, Nettis E, etal. Skin allergy to azole antifungal agents for systemic use:
a review of the literature. Recent Patents Inamm Allergy Drug Discov. 2019;13(2):144–57.
https://doi.org/10.2174/1872213X13666190919162414.
5. Cheraghlou S, Levy LL.Fixed drug eruptions, bullous drug eruptions, and lichenoid drug eruptions. Clin Dermatol. 2020;38(6):679–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2020.06.010.
6. Sokumbi O, Wetter DA.Clinical features, diagnosis, and treatment of erythema multiforme:
a review for the practicing dermatologist. Int J Dermatol. 2012;51(8):889–902. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365- 4632.2011.05348.x.
7. Gavin, Meredith etal. “Contrast-induced generalized bullous xed drug eruption resembling
Stevens-Johnson syndrome.” Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) vol. 32,4
601–602. 2019, doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2019.1644147.
8. Castelain F, Humbert P.Toxic epidermal necrolysis. Curr Drug Saf. 2012;7(5):332–8. https://
doi.org/10.2174/157488612805076516.
9. Jensen ZN, et al. Fluconazole-induced xed drug eruption imitating herpes labialis with
erythema multiforme. Eur J Dermatol EJD. 2012;22(5):693–4. https://doi.org/10.1684/
ejd.2012.1806.
10. Anderson HJ, Lee JB.A review of xed drug eruption with a special focus on generalized bullous xed drug eruption. Medicina. 2021;57(9):925.
11. Genest G, Thomson DMP. Fixed drug eruption to quinine: a case report and review of the
literature. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2014;2(4):469–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jaip.2014.02.013.
12. A case of entecavir-associated bullous xed drug eruption and a review of literature. Turk
J Gastroenterol. 2019;30(3):299–302. https://doi.org/10.5152/tjg. https://doi.org/10.5152/
tjg.2019. https://doi.org/10.5152/tjg.2018.17887.
13. Shiohara T. Fixed drug eruption: pathogenesis and diagnostic tests. Curr Opin Allergy Clin
Immunol. 2009;9(4):316–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACI.0b013e32832cda4c.
14. Fixed Drug Eruptions. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2000;1(5):277–85. https://doi.
org/10.2165/00128071-200001050-00003.
15. Mahboob A, Haroon TS.Drugs causing xed eruptions: a study of 450 cases. Int J Dermatol.
1998;37(11):833–38. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-4362.1998.00451.x.
16. Ohtoshi S, Kitami Y, Sueki H, Nakada T.Utility of patch testing for patients with drug eruption. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2014;39(3):279–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/ced.12239.
17. Patel S, John AM, Handler MZ, Schwartz RA. Fixed drug eruptions: an update emphasizing the potentially lethal generalized bullous xed drug eruption. Am J Clin Dermatol.
2020;21(3):393–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40257-020-00505-3.
18. Fixed drug eruption masquerading as herpes simplex labialis. BMJ. 1984;289(6448):802.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.289.6448.802.
19. Schneller-Pavelescu L, Ochando-Ibernón G, Vergara-de Caso E, Silvestre-Salvador JF.Herpes
simplex–like xed drug eruption induced by uconazole without cross-reactivity to itraconazole. Dermatitis. 2019;30(2):174–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0000000000000451.

Chapter 4
Deciency ofAdenosine Deaminase Type 2
(DADA2) Masquerading asGATA-Binding
Factor 2 (GATA2) Deciency
FatimaAnwer
Learning Objectives
By the end of this presentation, the clinician will be able to:
1. Discuss the phenotypic overlap between certain primary immunodeciency
disorders.
2. Identify the various hematologic, autoimmune and vasculitis manifestations
of DADA2.
3. Correctly diagnose DADA2 and know the role of whole-exome sequencing in
diagnosing DADA2.
4. Classify the various treatment modalities available to treat the disease effectively.
5. Articulate the value of early detection and therapy in reducing mortality and
improving prognosis.
Introduction
Adenosine is produced within or on the surface of cells by breaking adenine, a
purine nucleotide. It is important for anti-inammatory effects, boosting the oxygen
supply/demand ratio, preconditioning, and angiogenesis promotion. It acts through
G-coupled receptors, and it’s more active when there’s tissue injury or stress [1, 2].
Deciency of adenosine deaminase 2 (DADA2) is an autosomal recessive condition
caused by a loss of function mutation in the adenosine deaminase 2 gene, originally
known as cat eye syndrome critical region protein 1 (CECR1 gene). Neutrophils
play an important role in DADA2 pathogenesis by forming neutrophil extracellular
traps (NET) [3]. NET, in turn, leads to vasculopathy and direct endothelial injury
F. Anwer (*)
PGY-1, Internal Medicine, Harlem Hospital, New York, NY, USA
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023
H. Tohid et al. (eds.), The Misdiagnosis Casebook in Clinical Medicine,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28296-6_4
25

26
F. A nwe r
leading to vascular plaque formation and thrombosis [4]. DADA2 commonly affects
children. However, sometimes it can also appear in adults and is expressed as a
multiorgan disease. The disease can manifest as immunodeciency, medium vessel
vasculitis, hematologic disease, or even stroke [5].
Clinical Case Presentation
A 20-year-old Hispanic female presented for the evaluation of febrile neutropenia,
anemia, and invasive Fusarium proliferatum sinusitis. She was diagnosed with common variable immune deciency (CVID) at seven and had low Immunoglobulin G
(IgG). She has also been admitted at the age of 19 due to febrile neutropenia, right
maxillary sinusitis due to Fusarium proliferatum, sepsis, and respiratory failure secondary to extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli. She required
ICU care, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and corticosteroids at that time. For the
patient’s laboratory results, see Table4.1.
Her bone marrow was mildly hypocellular and showed no neutrophils or neutrophil precursors (promyelocytes, myelocytes, and/or metamyelocytes). It showed
erythroid predominance, myeloid hypoplasia, very low CD20+ B cells, and
increased T cells with lymphohistiocytic aggregates. There was no evidence of
dysplasia.
Flow cytometric analysis (FCA) of bone marrow aspirate revealed 4% myeloblasts, absent maturing neutrophil precursors, monocytopenia, severe B-cell lymphopenia, and increased T cells with a CD4:CD8 ratio of 0.48 (normal >1). She also
developed monocytopenia and Mycobacterium avium infection (MonoMAC) syndrome. The patient’s history and bone marrow ndings were consistent with
MonoMAC syndrome due to GATA2 deciency. But when tested, they found no
mutation of GATA2. Additionally, in GATA2 deciency, the dendritic cells and
B-cell precursors are absent in the bone marrow. However, cytogenetic analysis of
the patient’s bone marrow was normal with both dendritic cells and B-cell precursors. Whole-exome sequencing depicted a unique, homozygous change leading to a
Table 4.1 Patient’s laboratory results
Cell type Results Reference range
White blood cells 0.7 ↓ cells/μl 4.2–9.0×103 cells/μl
Absolute neutrophil count 0 ↓ cells/μl 1.7–5.3×103 cells/μl
Absolute monocytes count 0 ↓ cells/μl 0.3–0.8×103 cells/μl
CD20+ B cells 0 ↓ cells/μl 1121 100–600 cells/μl
Hemoglobin Hb 10.2 ↓ g/dl 11.2–15.7g/dL
Platelets 125 ↓ cells/μl 173–369×103 cells/μl
ABS CD19+ 0 ↓ cells/μl 61–321 cells/μl
ABS NK(CD56+) 32 ↓ cells/μl 126–729 cells/μl
ABS CD3+ 645 ↓ cells/μl 714–2266 cells/μl

4 Deciency of Adenosine Deaminase Type 2 (DADA2) Masquerading…
premature stop codon, c.794C>G, p. Gln265Stop, in CECR1-encoding adenosine
deaminase 2 (ADA2). Sanger sequencing of parents and siblings was done, and it
showed all to be heterozygous for the mutation. Although they originate from a
remote town, the family claimed no consanguinity, and a homozygous area of
650kb surrounding CECR1 suggests a shared ancestral allele. No one else in the
family had any signs or symptoms of the condition. However, the neutrophil counts
of both the father and two twin sisters were somewhat low.
Plasma ADA 2 levels were undetectable in the patient while intermediate in parents and siblings. The patient underwent a haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell
transplant HSCT from her 17-year-old sister, who had normal blood counts and no
history of immunodeciency. On post-op day 8, she caught methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia and bacteremia and was put on
mechanical ventilation. She had neutrophil engraftment on post-op day 19 and was
extubated on post-op day 20. The invasive Fusarium infection was resolved. After
1month, her CD3+ and myeloid chimerism were precisely the same as the donor,
and her monocyte count and NK cell count returned to normal. CD19+ B cells normalized after 1 year. Immunosuppression was gradually stopped after about
6 months. A 2-year follow-up showed a completely normal blood count and no
clinical abnormalities. The plasma ADA2 levels also normalized after the transplant [6].
27
Differential Diagnosis
1. Immunodeciency mimics CVID.
2. GATA2 deciency.
3. MonoMAC syndrome.
4. Polyarteritis nodosa.
5. Sneddon syndrome.
6. Diamond-Blackfan anemia.
7. Stroke.
What WasMisdiagnosed inThis Case andWhy?
In this case, the DADA2 was misconstrued as CVID rst, and GATA2 deciency
later as the peripheral blood count and bone marrow ndings pointed toward GATA2
deciency. Additionally, the patient had immunodeciency and multiple infections,
including MonoMAC syndrome, further supporting the GATA2 deciency.
However, the GATA2 levels were normal, ruling out the possibility. The wholeexome sequencing led to the nal diagnosis of DADA2 due to premature stop codon
in the CECR1 gene.

28
F. A nwe r
Discussion
DADA2 is a monogenic disorder that affects multiple organs [7]. The syndrome is
mainly characterized by medium vessel vasculitis, resembling polyarteritis nodosa,
early stroke, recurrent fever, and slight immunodeciency. The phenotypic appearance varies considerably. The illness generally shows up in childhood. However,
some people go unidentied until adulthood [8]. DADA2 should be suspected in the
patient presenting with recurrent fever, rash, and strokes even in the absence of family history. The patients exhibit hematological problems, including pure red cell
aplasia (PRCA), hypogammaglobulinemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia [9].
Patients presenting with hematologic manifestations like PRCA and bone marrow
failure present with severe disease and complete loss of function of ADA2. In contrast, those who suffer from vasculitis presented late in the course of the disease and
had missense mutation with roughly 3% residual enzyme function. The hematologic symptoms do not respond to treatment with tumor necrotic factor (TNF) inhibitors. On the other hand, vasculitis symptoms usually respond well to TNF inhibitors
[10]. The clinical manifestations of the DADA2 are shown in Fig.4.1.
The skin and central nervous systems are most involved. Approximately 50% of
patients have constitutional symptoms like fever and high erythrocyte sedimentation rate or elevated C-reactive proteins. Musculoskeletal symptoms are reported
less often [9].
DADA2 is sometimes misdiagnosed as common variable immunodeciency
(CVID) or deciency of antibodies. Schepp J etal. in 2017 conducted a study on a
cohort of 181 patients with decient antibodies and used next-generation
Fig. 4.1 Clinical manifestation of adenosine deaminase deciency type 2. (There can be an overlap of vasculitis, hematologic, and autoimmune symptoms)
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
